MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2465779640 · doi:10.3233/978-1-58603-888-5-96

Constrained Intensity-based Image Registration: Application to Aligning Human Back Images

2008· article· en· W2465779640 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Elsafi, N.G. Durdle, James Raso

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage registrationComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Intensity (physics)Optics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, an accurate method to register multi-view images of the human torso is developed. In particular, a new framework that incorporates prior statistical knowledge about the registration is developed and tested. This framework leads to a computationally efficient procedure to accurately align images of the human torso. An intensity based image registration procedure is used to obtain the deformation fields by modelling them as both locally affine and globally smooth. Next, the estimated geometric deformation fields are analyzed in order to construct a prior deformation model. Two subspace analysis projection techniques are used to construct the subspaces of plausible deformations, namely principal component analysis (PCA) and independent component analysis (ICA). Accurate deformations are now guaranteed by projecting the locally computed geometric transformations onto the subspaces of plausible deformations. The proposed registration method was validated using high resolution images of the human torso. In order to handle the high resolution images, a multi-resolution framework was employed in the registration process. Experiments demonstrate promising performance in terms of mean square error and in the computational complexity. The main contribution of this work is the development of image registration method that uses subspace constraints to align images of the human torso. This method did not use the intra and inter image constraints used in most intensity based image registration algorithms in the literature.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207