MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165523953 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2011.6030630

Local relative GLRLM-based texture feature extraction for classifying ultrasound medical images

2011· article· en· W2165523953 on OpenAlexaff
Abu Sayeed Md. Sohail, Prabir Bhattacharya, Sudhir P. Mudur, Srinivasan Krishnamurthy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFeature extractionArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Feature (linguistics)Partition (number theory)Local binary patternsComputer visionImage (mathematics)HistogramMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new approach of extracting local relative texture feature from ultrasound medical images using the Gray Level Run Length Matrix (GLRLM) based global feature. To adapt the traditional global approach of GLRLM -based feature extraction method, a three level partitioning of images has been proposed that enables capturing of local features in terms of global image properties. Local relative features are then calculated as the absolute difference of the global features of each lower layer partition sub-block and that of its corresponding upper layer partition block. Performance of the proposed local relative feature extraction method has been verified by applying it in classifying ultrasound medical images of ovarian abnormalities. Besides, significant improvement has been noticed by comparing the proposed method with traditional GLRLM -based feature extraction method in terms of image classification performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations41
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207