MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2971886719 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.2018.8824428

3D segmentation of artery 18F-FDG PET/CT images in elderly utilizing affinity propagation

2018· article· en· W2971886719 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Yazid Mokeddem, Mamdouh S. Al-enezi, Redha-alla Abdo, M’hamed Bentourkia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationArteryCalcificationMedicineArtificial intelligenceImage segmentationRadiologyNuclear medicineComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present in this study a semi-automatic procedure to segment artery PET images in elderly subjects with atherosclerosis. The inflammation in the artery is a precursor of atheromatous plaque detachment and obstruction of blood vessels in the brain or the heart. CT images allow calcification detection in the arteries, and dynamic PET images with 18F-FDG allow to calculate glucose metabolism in the arteries to ultimately detect the inflammation. The goal of the artery image segmentation was to correlate the calcification on CT images to the artery metabolism on the PET images. First, all the artery images were delineated in each slice on the non-enhanced CT images with reference to anatomic atlases, and we used the active contours to locate the corresponding PET artery images at early time frames. All the artery images on PET were corrected for partial volume effect then each slice of the PET images was segmented with the algorithm of affinity propagation (AP). We introduced the segmentation of the dynamic histogram which is more accurate than segmenting image frames independently. The 3D reconstruction of the segmented arteries will be used in a future work to correlate glucose uptake to artery calcification.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→