MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168287284 · doi:10.1109/isbi.2006.1625026

Shape vs. Volume: Invariant Shape Descriptors for 3D Region of Interest Characterization in MRI

2006· article· en· W2168287284 on OpenAlexaff
Sina Tootoonian, Rafeef Abugharbieh, Xuemei Huang, Martin J. McKeown

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on AgingDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
KeywordsCaudate nucleusThalamusParkinson's diseaseInvariant (physics)Region of interestSubthalamic nucleusShape analysis (program analysis)NeuroscienceNuclear medicineAnatomyMedicinePsychologyMathematicsDiseaseBiologyPathologyRadiologyDeep brain stimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a new approach for quantifying regions of interest (ROIs) in medical image data. Rotationally invariant shape descriptors (ISDs) were applied to 3D brain regions extracted from MRI scans of 5 Parkinson's patients and 10 control subjects. We concentrated on the thalamus and the caudate nucleus since prior studies have suggested they are affected in Parkinson's disease (PD). In the caudate, both the ISD and volumetric analyses found significant differences between control and PD subjects. The ISD analysis however revealed additional differences between the left and right caudate nuclei in both control and PD subjects. In the thalamus, the volumetric analysis showed significant differences between PD and control subjects, while ISD analysis found significant differences between the left and right thalami in control subjects but not in PD patients, implying disease-induced shape changes. These results suggest that employing ISDs for ROI characterization both complements and extends traditional volumetric 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207