Quantitative characterization of metastatic disease in the spine. Part I. Semiautomated segmentation using atlas‐based deformable registration and the level set method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative assessment of metastatic disease in bone is often considered immeasurable and, as such, patients with skeletal metastases are often excluded from clinical trials. In order to effectively quantify the impact of metastatic tumor involvement in the spine, accurate segmentation of the vertebra is required. Manual segmentation can be accurate but involves extensive and time-consuming user interaction. Potential solutions to automating segmentation of metastatically involved vertebrae are demons deformable image registration and level set methods. The purpose of this study was to develop a semiautomated method to accurately segment tumor-bearing vertebrae using the aforementioned techniques. By maintaining morphology of an atlas, the demons-level set composite algorithm was able to accurately differentiate between trans-cortical tumors and surrounding soft tissue of identical intensity. The algorithm successfully segmented both the vertebral body and trabecular centrum of tumor-involved and healthy vertebrae. This work validates our approach as equivalent in accuracy to an experienced user.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".