MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2219550230 · doi:10.5430/jbgc.v6n1p8

Shape localization, quantification and correspondence using Region Matching Algorithm

2015· article· en· W2219550230 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Graphics and Computing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalientMaxima and minimaMatching (statistics)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Invariant (physics)Similarity (geometry)PlanarScale (ratio)MathematicsComputer visionImage (mathematics)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a method for local, region-based matching of planar shapes, especially as those shapes that change over time. This is a problem fundamental to medical imaging, specifically the comparison over time of mammograms. The method is based on the non-emergence and non-enhancement of maxima, as well as the causality principle of integral invariant scale space. The core idea of our Region Matching Algorithm (RMA) is to divide a shape into a number of “salient” regions and then to compare all such regions for local similarity in order to quantitatively identify new growths or partial/complete occlusions. The algorithm has several advantages over commonly used methods for shape comparison of segmented regions. First, it provides improved key-point alignment for optimal shape correspondence. Second, it identifies localized changes such as new growths as well as complete/partial occlusion in corresponding regions by dividing the segmented region into sub-regions based upon the extrema that persist over a sufficient range of scales. Third, the algorithm does not depend upon the spatial locations of mammographic features and eliminates the need for registration to identify salient changes over time. Finally, the algorithm is fast to compute and requires no human intervention. We apply the method to temporal pairs of mammograms in order to detect potentially important differences between them.

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.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.249 · 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