MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786622278 · doi:10.1109/crv.2017.11

Localizing 3-D Anatomical Landmarks Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks

2017· article· en· W2786622278 on OpenAlexaff
Pengcheng Xi, Chang Shu, Rafik Goubran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandmarkArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkDeep learningPattern recognition (psychology)SegmentationComputer visionArtificial neural networkScale (ratio)Deep neural networksCurvatureProcess (computing)CartographyGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anatomical landmarks on 3-D human body scans play key roles in shape-essential applications, including consistent parameterization, body measurement extraction, segmentation, and mesh re-targeting. Manually locating landmarks is tedious and time-consuming for large-scale 3-D anthropometric surveys. To automate the landmarking process, we propose a data-driven approach, which learns from landmark locations known on a dataset of 3-D scans and predicts their locations on new scans. More specifically, we adopt a coarse-to-fine approach by training a deep regression neural network to compute the locations of all landmarks and then for each landmark training an individual deep classification neural network to improve its accuracy. In regards to input images being fed into the neural networks, we compute from a frontal view three types of image renderings for comparison, i.e., gray-scale appearance images, range depth images, and curvature mapped images. Among these, curvature mapped images result in the best empirical accuracy from the deep regression network, whereas depth images lead to higher accuracy for locating most landmarks using the deep classification networks. In conclusion, the proposed approach performs better than state of the art on locating most landmarks. The simple yet effective approach can be extended to automatically locate landmarks in large scale 3-D scan datasets.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207