MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997862816 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2962608

S<sup>3</sup>egANet: 3D Spinal Structures Segmentation via Adversarial Nets

2019· article· en· W2997862816 on OpenAlexaff
Tianyang Li, Benzheng Wei, Jinyu Cong, Xuzhou Li, Shuo Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersProject of Shandong Province Higher Educational Science and Technology ProgramNatural Science Foundation of Shandong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceSegmentationArtificial intelligenceVoxelModality (human–computer interaction)Pattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3D spinal structures segmentation is crucial to reduce the time-consumption issue and provide quantitative parameters for disease treatment and surgical operation. However, the most related studies of spinal structures segmentation are based on 2D or 3D single structure segmentation. Due to the high complexity of spinal structures, the segmentation of 3D multiple spinal structures with consistently reliable and high accuracy is still a significant challenge. We developed and validated a relatively complete solution for the simultaneous 3D semantic segmentation of multiple spinal structures at the voxel level named as the S3egANet. Firstly, S3egANet explicitly solved the high variety and variability of complex 3D spinal structures through a multi-modality autoencoder module that was capable of extracting fine-grained structural information. Secondly, S3egANet adopted a cross-modality voxel fusion module to incorporate comprehensive spatial information from multi-modality MRI images. Thirdly, we presented a multi-stage adversarial learning strategy to achieve high accuracy and reliability segmentation of multiple spinal structures simultaneously. Extensive experiments on MRI images of 90 patients demonstrated that S3egANet achieved mean Dice coefficient of 88.3% and mean Sensitivity of 91.45%, which revealed its effectiveness and potential as a clinical tool.

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)0.002
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207