Leveraging Tree Statistics for Extracting Anatomical Trees from 3D Medical Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using different priors (e.g. shape and appearance) have proven critical for robust image segmentation of different types of target objects. Many existing methods for extracting trees (e.g. vascular or airway trees) from medical images have leveraged appearance priors (e.g. tubular-ness and bifurcationness) and the knowledge of the cross-sectional geometry (e.g. circles or ellipses) of the tree-forming tubes. In this work, we present the first method for 3D tree extraction from 3D medical images (e.g. CT or MRI) that, in addition to appearance and cross-sectional geometry priors, utilizes prior tree statistics collected from the training data. Our tree extraction method collects and leverages topological tree prior and geometrical statistics, including tree hierarchy, branch angle and length statistics. Our implementation takes the form of a Bayesian tree centerline tracking method combining the aforementioned tree priors with observed image data. We evaluated our method on both synthetic 3D datasets and real clinical CT chest datasets. For synthetic data, our method's key feature of incorporating tree priors resulted in at least 13% increase in correctly detected branches under different noise levels. For real clinical scans, the mean distance from ground truth centerlines to the detected centerlines by our method was improved by 12% when utilizing tree priors. Both experiments validate that, by incorporating tree statistics, our tree extraction method becomes more robust to noise and provides more accurate branch localization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".