Spinal Cord Segmentation in Ultrasound Medical Imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study and evaluate the task of semantic segmentation of the spinal cord in ultrasound medical imagery. This task is useful for neurosurgeons to analyze the spinal cord movement during and after the laminectomy surgical operation. Laminectomy is performed on patients that suffer from an abnormal pressure made on the spinal cord. The surgeon operates by cutting the bones of the laminae and the intervening ligaments to relieve this pressure. During the surgery, ultrasound waves can pass through the laminectomy area to give real-time exploitable images of the spinal cord. The surgeon uses them to confirm spinal cord decompression or, occasionally, to assess a tumor adjacent to the spinal cord. The Freely pulsating spinal cord is a sign of adequate decompression. To evaluate the semantic segmentation approaches chosen in this study, we constructed two datasets using images collected from 10 different patients performing the laminectomy surgery. We found that the best solution for this task is Fully Convolutional DenseNets if the spinal cord is already in the train set. If the spinal cord does not exist in the train set, U-Net is the best. We also studied the effect of integrating inside both models some deep learning components like Atrous Spatial Pyramid Pooling (ASPP) and Depthwise Separable Convolution (DSC). We added a post-processing step and detailed the configurations to set for both models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".