MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330616591 · doi:10.1117/12.2216486

Ultrafast superpixel segmentation of large 3D medical datasets

2016· article· en· W2330616591 on OpenAlexaff
Antoine Leblond, Claude Kauffmann

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSegmentationCUDAWavefrontField-programmable gate arrayThread (computing)AccelerationReal-time computingParallel computingArtificial intelligenceComputer hardware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Even with recent hardware improvements, superpixel segmentation of large 3D medical images at interactive speed (&lt;500 ms) remains a challenge. We will describe methods to achieve such performances using a GPU based hybrid framework implementing wavefront propagation and cellular automata resolution. Tasks will be scheduled in blocks (work units) using a wavefront propagation strategy, therefore allowing sparse scheduling. Because work units has been designed as spatially cohesive, the fast <i>Thread Group Shared Memory</i> can be used and reused through a Gauss-Seidel like acceleration. The work unit partitioning scheme will however vary on odd- and even-numbered iterations to reduce convergence barriers. Synchronization will be ensured by an 8-step 3D variant of the traditional Red Black Ordering scheme. An attack model and early termination will also be described and implemented as additional acceleration techniques. Using our hybrid framework and typical operating parameters, we were able to compute the superpixels of a high-resolution 512x512x512 aortic angioCT scan in 283 ms using a AMD R9 290X GPU. We achieved a 22.3X speed-up factor compared to the published reference GPU implementation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0020.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207