Performance of an automated segmentation algorithm for 3D MR renography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accuracy and precision of an automated graph-cuts (GC) segmentation technique for dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) 3D MR renography (MRR) was analyzed using 18 simulated and 22 clinical datasets. For clinical data, the error was 7.2 +/- 6.1 cm(3) for the cortex and 6.5 +/- 4.6 cm(3) for the medulla. The precision of segmentation was 7.1 +/- 4.2 cm(3) for the cortex and 7.2 +/- 2.4 cm(3) for the medulla. Compartmental modeling of kidney function in 22 kidneys yielded a renal plasma flow (RPF) error of 7.5% +/- 4.5% and single-kidney GFR error of 13.5% +/- 8.8%. The precision was 9.7% +/- 6.4% for RPF and 14.8% +/- 11.9% for GFR. It took 21 min to segment one kidney using GC, compared to 2.5 hr for manual segmentation. The accuracy and precision in RPF and GFR appear acceptable for clinical use. With expedited image processing, DCE 3D MRR has the potential to expand our knowledge of renal function in individual kidneys and to help diagnose renal insufficiency in a safe and noninvasive manner.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".