MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790535226 · doi:10.1109/ipta.2017.8310152

Coarse-to-fine texture analysis for inner cell mass identification in human blastocyst microscopic images

2017· article· en· W2790535226 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Moradi Rad, Parvaneh Saeedi, Jason Au, Jon Havelock

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsPacific Centre for Reproductive MedicineSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInner cell massBlastocystJaccard indexEmbryoPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceIdentification (biology)BiologyCell biologyEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate identification of different components of a developing human embryo play crucial roles in assessing the quality of such embryo. One of the most important components of a day-5 human embryo is Inner Cell Mass (ICM). ICM is a part of an embryo that will eventually develop into a fetus. In this paper, an automatic coarse-to-fine texture based approach presented to identify regions of an embryo corresponding to the ICM. First, blastocyst area corresponding to the textured regions is recognized using Gabor and DCT features. Next, two ICM localization approaches are introduced to identify a rough estimate of the ICM location. Finally, the boundaries of the ICM region is finalized using a region based level-set. Experimental results on a data set of 220 day-5 human embryo images confirm that the proposed method is capable of identifying ICM with average Precision, Recall, and Jaccard Index of 78.7%, 86.8%, and 70.3%, respectively.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207