Prostate boundary segmentation from 3D ultrasound images
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Segmenting, or outlining the prostate boundary is an important task in the management of patients with prostate cancer. In this paper, an algorithm is described for semiautomatic segmentation of the prostate from 3D ultrasound images. The algorithm uses model-based initialization and mesh refinement using an efficient deformable model. Initialization requires the user to select only six points from which the outline of the prostate is estimated using shape information. The estimated outline is then automatically deformed to better fit the prostate boundary. An editing tool allows the user to edit the boundary in problematic regions and then deform the model again to improve the final results. The algorithm requires less than 1 min on a Pentium III 400 MHz PC. The accuracy of the algorithm was assessed by comparing the algorithm results, obtained from both local and global analysis, to the manual segmentations on six prostates. The local difference was mapped on the surface of the algorithm boundary to produce a visual representation. Global error analysis showed that the average difference between manual and algorithm boundaries was -0.20 +/- 0.28 mm, the average absolute difference was 1.19 +/- 0.14 mm, the average maximum difference was 7.01 +/- 1.04 mm, and the average volume difference was 7.16% +/- 3.45%. Variability in manual and algorithm segmentation was also assessed: Visual representations of local variability were generated by mapping variability on the segmentation mesh. The mean variability in manual segmentation was 0.98 mm and in algorithm segmentation was 0.63 mm and the differences of about 51.5% of the points comprising the average algorithm boundary are insignificant (P < or = 0.01) to the manual average boundary.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it