MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285509918 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2015.2479252

Body Composition Assessment in Axial CT Images Using FEM-Based Automatic Segmentation of Skeletal Muscle

2015· article· en· W2285509918 on OpenAlexaff
Karteek Popuri, Dana Cobzaş, Nina Esfandiari, Vickie E. Baracos, Martin Jägersand

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJaccard indexSegmentationSkeletal muscleImage segmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFinite element methodA priori and a posterioriComputer visionSørensen–Dice coefficientPattern recognition (psychology)MedicineAnatomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proportions of muscle and fat tissues in the human body, referred to as body composition is a vital measurement for cancer patients. Body composition has been recently linked to patient survival and the onset/recurrence of several types of cancers in numerous cancer research studies. This paper introduces a fully automatic framework for the segmentation of muscle and fat tissues from CT images to estimate body composition. We developed a novel finite element method (FEM) deformable model that incorporates a priori shape information via a statistical deformation model (SDM) within the template-based segmentation framework. The proposed method was validated on 1000 abdominal and 530 thoracic CT images and we obtained very good segmentation results with Jaccard scores in excess of 90% for both the muscle and fat regions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.389
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations135
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207