MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2659398814 · doi:10.1109/isbi.2017.7950713

Detection of lumen and media-adventitia borders in IVUS images using sparse auto-encoder neural network

2017· article· en· W2659398814 on OpenAlexaff
Shengran Su, Zhifan Gao, Heye Zhang, Qiang Lin, William Kongto Hau, Shuo Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSoftmax functionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceLumen (anatomy)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural networkIntravascular ultrasoundComputer visionFeature (linguistics)Radiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes an artificial neural network (ANN) method that employs a feature-learning algorithm to detect the lumen and MA borders in intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) images. Three types of imaging features including spatial, neighboring, and gradient features were used as the input features to the neural network, and then the different vascular layers were distinguished using two sparse autoencoders and one softmax classifier. To smooth the lumen and MA borders detected by the ANN method, we used the active contour model. The performance of our approach was compared with the manual drawing method and another existing method on 538 IVUS images from six subjects. Results showed that our approach had a high correlation (r = 0.9284 ~ 0.9875 for all measurements) and good agreement (bias = 0.0148 ~ 0.4209 mm) with the manual drawing method, and small detection error (lumen border: 0.0928±0.0935 mm, MA border: 0.1056±0.1088 mm). The average time to process each image was 14±4.6 seconds. The obtained results indicate that our proposed approach can be used to efficiently and accurately detect the lumen and MA borders in IVUS 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207