A 4D biomechanical lung phantom for joint segmentation/registration evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present, there exists few openly available methods for evaluation of simultaneous segmentation and registration algorithms. These methods allow for a combination of both techniques to track the tumor in complex settings such as adaptive radiotherapy. We have produced a quality assurance platform for evaluating this specific subset of algorithms using a preserved porcine lung in such that it is multi-modality compatible: positron emission tomography (PET), computer tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A computer controlled respirator was constructed to pneumatically manipulate the lungs in order to replicate human breathing traces. A registration ground truth was provided using an in-house bifurcation tracking pipeline. Segmentation ground truth was provided by synthetic multi-compartment lesions to simulate biologically active tumor, background tissue and a necrotic core. The bifurcation tracking pipeline results were compared to digital deformations and used to evaluate three registration algorithms, Diffeomorphic demons, fast-symmetric forces demons and MiMVista's deformable registration tool. Three segmentation algorithms the Chan Vese level sets method, a Hybrid technique and the multi-valued level sets algorithm. The respirator was able to replicate three seperate breathing traces with a mean accuracy of 2-2.2%. Bifurcation tracking error was found to be sub-voxel when using human CT data for displacements up to 6.5 cm and approximately 1.5 voxel widths for displacements up to 3.5 cm for the porcine lungs. For the fast-symmetric, diffeomorphic and MiMvista registration algorithms, mean geometric errors were found to be [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] voxels widths respectively using the vector field differences and [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] voxel widths using the bifurcation tracking pipeline. The proposed phantom was found sufficient for accurate evaluation of registration and segmentation algorithms. The use of automatically generated anatomical landmarks proposed can eliminate the time and potential innacuracy of manual landmark selection using expert observers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".