MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2303634517 · doi:10.3844/jcssp.2015.957.970

Segmentation Methods of Echocardiography Images for Left Ventricle Boundary Detection

2015· article· en· W2303634517 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceImage segmentationCardiac UltrasoundVentricleComputer visionUltrasoundPattern recognition (psychology)RadiologyMedicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to acoustic interferences and artifacts which are inherent in echocardiography images, automatic segmentation of anatomical structures in cardiac ultrasound images is a real challenge. This paper surveys state-of-the-art researches on echocardiography data segmentation methods, concentrating on methods techniques developed for clinical data. We present a classification of methodologies for echocardiography image segmentation. By choosing ten recent papers which have proposed innovative ideas that they proved certain clinical advantages or potential especial role to the echocardiography segmentation task. The contribution of the paper would be serving as a tutorial of the field for both clinicians and technologists, providing large number of segmentation techniques in a comprehensive and systematic manner and critically review recent approaches in terms of their performance and degree of clinical evaluation with respect to the final goal of cardiac functional analysis.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.388 · 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