MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160856184 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2009.5332916

Speckle reduction and lesion segmentation of OCT tooth images for early caries detection

2009· article· en· W2160856184 on OpenAlexafffund
Jialin Li, Christopher Bowman, Reza Fazel-Rezai, Mark Hewko, Lin‐P'ing Choo‐Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaNational Research Council Institute for BiodiagnosticsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNational Institutes of HealthMitacs
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceSpeckle noiseSegmentationThresholdingComputer visionComputer scienceSpeckle patternPattern recognition (psychology)Optical coherence tomographyImage segmentationNoise reductionKernel (algebra)MathematicsMedicineRadiologyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The significance of identifying early non-cavitated carious lesions and monitoring the lesion extent has led to increasing prospects for prevention, early diagnosis, and implementation of conservative treatments. This paper emphasizes the importance of speckle reduction and possible lesion segmentation options of optical coherence tomography (OCT) images prior to caries detection. First, a comparison of popular speckle reduction filters is presented. These filtering algorithms were evaluated to measure the ability of different methods for reducing background noise from raw images. Both qualitative and quantitative results (signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio) are reported. Image segmentation is then applied to multiple tooth images. With proper thresholding, high intensity response regions are outlined with the possibility of assessing caries and monitoring its regression. Our results show that a rotating kernel transformation (RKT) filter with 9x9 kernel size provides a good compromise between noise reduction yet preserving the pathological features of interest as required for subsequent feature segmentation analyses.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207