MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165716229 · doi:10.1117/12.871172

Unsupervised segmentation of ultrasound images by fusion of spatio-frequential textural features

2011· article· en· W2165716229 on OpenAlexaff
S. Benameur, Max Mignotte, Frédéric Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSegmentationComputer visionScale-space segmentationImage segmentationSegmentation-based object categorizationPattern recognition (psychology)Speckle noiseRegion growingImage textureSpeckle pattern

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image segmentation plays an important role in both qualitative and quantitative analysis of medical ultrasound images. However, due to their poor resolution and strong speckle noise, segmenting objects from this imaging modality remains a challenging task and may not be satisfactory with traditional image segmentation methods. To this end, this paper presents a simple, reliable, and conceptually different segmentation technique to locate and extract bone contours from ultrasound images. Instead of considering a new elaborate (texture) segmentation model specifically adapted for the ultrasound images, our technique proposes to fuse (i.e. efficiently combine) several segmentation maps associated with simpler segmentation models in order to get a final reliable and accurate segmentation result. More precisely, our segmentation model aims at fusing several <i>K</i>-means clustering results, each one exploiting, as simple cues, a set of complementary textural features, either spatial or frequential. Eligible models include the gray-level co-occurrence matrix, the re-quantized histogram, the Gabor filter bank, and local DCT coefficients. The experiments reported in this paper demonstrate the efficiency and illustrate all the potential of this segmentation approach.

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 score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207