A Conditional Random Field Weakly Supervised Segmentation Approach for Segmenting keratocytes Cells in Corneal Optical Coherence Tomography Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Keratocytes are vital for maintaining the overall health of human<br />cornea as they preserve the corneal transparency and help in healing<br />corneal injuries. Manual segmentation of keratocytes is challenging,<br />time consuming and also needs an expert. Here, we propose<br />a novel semi-automatic segmentation framework, called Conditional<br />Random FieldWeakly Supervised Segmentation (CRF-WSS)<br />to perform the keratocytes cell segmentation. The proposed framework<br />exploits the concept of dictionary learning in a sparse model<br />along with the Conditional Random Field (CRF) modeling to segment<br />keratocytes cells in Ultra High Resolution Optical Coherence<br />Tomography (UHR-OCT) images of human cornea. The results<br />show higher accuracy for the proposed CRF-WSS framework compare<br />to the other tested Supervised Segmentation (SS) andWeakly<br />Supervised Segmentation (WSS) methods.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".