Evaluation of non-rigid registration parameters for atlas-based segmentation of CT images of human cochlea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cochlear implant surgery is a hearing restoration procedure for patients with profound hearing loss. In this surgery, an electrode is inserted into the cochlea to stimulate the auditory nerve and restore the patient’s hearing. Clinical computed tomography (CT) images are used for planning and evaluation of electrode placement, but their low resolution limits the visualization of internal cochlear structures. Therefore, high resolution micro-CT images are used to develop atlas-based segmentation methods to extract these nonvisible anatomical features in clinical CT images. Accurate registration of the high and low resolution CT images is a prerequisite for reliable atlas-based segmentation. In this study, we evaluate and compare different non-rigid B-spline registration parameters using micro-CT and clinical CT images of five cadaveric human cochleae. The varying registration parameters are cost function (normalized correlation (NC), mutual information and mean square error), interpolation method (linear, windowed-sinc and B-spline) and sampling percentage (1%, 10% and 100%). We compare the registration results visually and quantitatively using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD) and absolute percentage error in cochlear volume. Using MI or MSE cost functions and linear or windowed-sinc interpolation resulted in visually undesirable deformation of internal cochlear structures. Quantitatively, the transforms using 100% sampling percentage yielded the highest DSC and smallest HD (0.828±0.021 and 0.25±0.09mm respectively). Therefore, B-spline registration with cost function: NC, interpolation: B-spline and sampling percentage: moments 100% can be the foundation of developing an optimized atlas-based segmentation algorithm of intracochlear structures in clinical CT images.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".