Automated Cross-Sectional Measurement Method of Intracranial Dural Venous Sinuses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MRV is an important blood vessel imaging and diagnostic tool for the evaluation of stenosis, occlusions, or aneurysms. However, an accurate image-processing tool for vessel comparison is unavailable. The purpose of this study was to develop and test an automated technique for vessel cross-sectional analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An algorithm for vessel cross-sectional analysis was developed that included 7 main steps: 1) image registration, 2) masking, 3) segmentation, 4) skeletonization, 5) cross-sectional planes, 6) clustering, and 7) cross-sectional analysis. Phantom models were used to validate the technique. The method was also tested on a control subject and a patient with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (4 large sinuses tested: right and left transverse sinuses, superior sagittal sinus, and straight sinus). The cross-sectional area and shape measurements were evaluated before and after lumbar puncture in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension. RESULTS: The vessel-analysis algorithm had a high degree of stability with <3% of cross-sections manually corrected. All investigated principal cranial blood sinuses had a significant cross-sectional area increase after lumbar puncture (P ≤ .05). The average triangularity of the transverse sinuses was increased, and the mean circularity of the sinuses was decreased by 6% ± 12% after lumbar puncture. Comparison of phantom and real data showed that all computed errors were <1 voxel unit, which confirmed that the method provided a very accurate solution. CONCLUSIONS: In this article, we present a novel automated imaging method for cross-sectional vessels analysis. The method can provide an efficient quantitative detection of abnormalities in the dural sinuses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".