MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912974134 · doi:10.29007/x9mr

A Machine Learning Framework for Intraoperative Segmentation and Quality Assessment of Pedicle Screw X-Rays

2018· article· en· W2912974134 on OpenAlexafffund
Hooman Esfandiari, Carolyn Anglin, John Street, Pierre Guy, Antony J. Hodgson

Bibliographic record

VenueEPiC series in health sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCentre for Hip Health and MobilityInstitute for Computing, Information and Cognitive Systems
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionRadiographyProjection (relational algebra)Process (computing)MedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pedicle screw fixation is a technically demanding procedure with potential difficulties and reoperation rates are currently on the order of 11%. The most common intraoperative practice for position assessment of pedicle screws is biplanar fluoroscopic imaging that is limited to two-dimensions and is associated to low accuracies. We have previously introduced a full-dimensional position assessment framework based on registering intraoperative X-rays to preoperative volumetric images with sufficient accuracies. However, the framework requires a semi-manual process of pedicle screw segmentation and the intraoperative X-rays have to be taken from defined positions in space in order to avoid pedicle screws’ head occlusion. This motivated us to develop advancements to the system to achieve higher levels of automation in the hope of higher clinical feasibility. In this study, we developed an automatic segmentation and X-ray adequacy assessment protocol. An artificial neural network was trained on a dataset that included a number of digitally reconstructed radiographs representing pedicle screw projections from different points of view. This model was able to segment the projection of any pedicle screw given an X-ray as its input with accuracy of 93% of the pixels. Once the pedicle screw was segmented, a number of descriptive geometric features were extracted from the isolated blob. These segmented images were manually labels as ‘adequate’ or ‘not adequate’ depending on the visibility of the screw axis. The extracted features along with their corresponding labels were used to train a decision tree model that could classify each X-ray based on its adequacy with accuracies on the order of 95%. In conclusion, we presented here a robust, fast and automated pedicle screw segmentation process, combined with an accurate and automatic algorithm for classifying views of pedicle screws as adequate or not. These tools represent a useful step towards full automation of our pedicle screw positioning assessment system.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPiC series in health sciencesSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207