MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2358693203 · doi:10.1080/10255842.2016.1181173

Interactive graph-cut segmentation for fast creation of finite element models from clinical ct data for hip fracture prediction

2016· article· en· W2358693203 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Pauchard, Thomas Fitze, Diego Browarnik, Amiraslan Eskandari, Irene Pauchard, William S. Enns-Bray, Halldór Pálsson, Sigurður Sigurðsson, Stephen J. Ferguson, Tamara B. Harris, Vilmundur Guðnason, Benedikt Helgason

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSegmentationFinite element methodGraphHip fractureComputer scienceFracture (geology)Artificial intelligenceGeologyStructural engineeringMedicineTheoretical computer scienceEngineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we propose interactive graph cut image segmentation for fast creation of femur finite element (FE) models from clinical computed tomography scans for hip fracture prediction. Using a sample of N = 48 bone scans representing normal, osteopenic and osteoporotic subjects, the proximal femur was segmented using manual (gold standard) and graph cut segmentation. Segmentations were subsequently used to generate FE models to calculate overall stiffness and peak force in a sideways fall simulations. Results show that, comparable FE results can be obtained with the graph cut method, with a reduction from 20 to 2–5 min interaction time. Average differences between segmentation methods of 0.22 mm were not significantly correlated with differences in FE derived stiffness (R2 = 0.08, p = 0.05) and weakly correlated to differences in FE derived peak force (R2 = 0.16, p = 0.01). We further found that changes in automatically assigned boundary conditions as a consequence of small segmentation differences were significantly correlated with FE derived results. The proposed interactive graph cut segmentation software MITK-GEM is freely available online at https://simtk.org/home/mitk-gem.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.409
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations65
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical EngineeringSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207