MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996684353 · doi:10.29007/m1ll

Preliminary Planning for a Multi-institutional Database for Ultrasound Bone Segmentation

2019· article· en· W2996684353 on OpenAlexafffund
Prashant Pandey, Hridayi Patel, Pierre Guy, Ilker Hacihalilogu, Antony J. Hodgson

Bibliographic record

VenueEPiC series in health sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversité de Bretagne OccidentaleUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoTechnische Universität MünchenErasmus Universitair Medisch Centrum RotterdamQueen's University
KeywordsSegmentationComputer scienceKey (lock)Reliability (semiconductor)DatabaseComponent (thermodynamics)Image segmentationSet (abstract data type)Data scienceComputer visionComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultrasound (US) bone segmentation is a key component in many US-based computer assisted orthopaedic systems. Although numerous US bone segmentations techniques exist, there remains no direct way of comparing their performances. This is primarily due to the lack of an accessible US bone image database, and secondly due to a lack of standard vali- dation practices. To address this issue, we are beginning a multi-institutional international collaboration across multiple research centres with the aim of creating an open database for US bone segmentation consisting of several thousand US images and corresponding bone surface segmentations. Our collaboration also aims to address outstanding issues in US bone segmentation, such as determining the reliability of manual segmentations and establishing a set of evaluation metrics which should be reported in future segmentation studies. Finally, we strongly encourage interested researchers to join and contribute to this project as this will help to create a more diverse database and knowledgeable collaboration.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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