FAst Segmentation Through SURface Fairing (FASTSURF): A novel semi-automatic hippocampus segmentation method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective is to present a proof-of-concept of a semi-automatic method to reduce hippocampus segmentation time on magnetic resonance images (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: FAst Segmentation Through SURface Fairing (FASTSURF) is based on a surface fairing technique which reconstructs the hippocampus from sparse delineations. To validate FASTSURF, simulations were performed in which sparse delineations extracted from full manual segmentations served as input. On three different datasets with different diagnostic groups, FASTSURF hippocampi were compared to the original segmentations using Jaccard overlap indices and percentage volume differences (PVD). In one data set for which back-to-back scans were available, unbiased estimates of overlap and PVD were obtained. Using longitudinal scans, we compared hippocampal atrophy rates measured by manual, FASTSURF and two automatic segmentations (FreeSurfer and FSL-FIRST). RESULTS: With only seven input contours, FASTSURF yielded mean Jaccard indices ranging from 72(±4.3)% to 83(±2.6)% and PVDs ranging from 0.02(±2.40)% to 3.2(±3.40)% across the three datasets. Slightly poorer results were obtained for the unbiased analysis, but the performance was still considerably better than both tested automatic methods with only five contours. CONCLUSIONS: FASTSURF segmentations have high accuracy and require only a fraction of the delineation effort of fully manual segmentation. Atrophy rate quantification based on completely manual segmentation is well reproduced by FASTSURF. Therefore, FASTSURF is a promising tool to be implemented in clinical workflow, provided a future prospective validation confirms our findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".