MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2425900105 · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2016.2580040

An Automated Approach for Kidney Segmentation in Three-Dimensional Ultrasound Images

2016· article· en· W2425900105 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahdi Marsousi, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis, Stergios Stergiopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceSpeckle noiseComputer scienceSegmentationUltrasoundComputer visionLevel set (data structures)3D ultrasoundPattern recognition (psychology)Metric (unit)Shape analysis (program analysis)Active shape modelImage segmentationSpeckle patternRadiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated segmentation of kidneys in three-dimensional (3-D) abdominal ultrasound volumes is a task of paramount importance in automated diagnosis of abdominal trauma. However, ultrasound speckle noise, low-contrast boundaries, partial kidney occlusion, and probe misalignment restrict the utility of the solution, especially when it is used in emergency rooms and Focused Assessment with Sonography Trauma applications. This paper introduces a systematic and cost-effective method capable of detecting and segmenting the kidney's shape in acquired 3-D ultrasound volumes, using off-line training datasets. This paper offers a new shape model representation, called the complex-valued implicit shape model, to generate a 3-D kidney shape model by combining prior knowledge of training shapes and anatomical knowledge. We apply shape-to-volume registration, based on a new similarity metric, to detect the kidney shape by fitting the 3-D shape model on 3-D ultrasound volumes. Upon kidney detection, the fitted shape model is used to initialize and evolve a new level-set function, called complex-valued rational level-set with shape prior, to segment the kidney's shape. Experimentation using both simulated and actual ultrasound volumes indicate that the proposed solution provides a better performance over the state-of-the-art volumetric ultrasound segmentation methods.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.333 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations37
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health InformaticsSame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207