Automatic segmentation of spinal ultrasound landmarks with U-net using multiple consecutive images for input
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<strong>PURPOSE:</strong> Scoliosis screening is currently only implemented in a few countries due to the lack of a safe and accurate measurement method. Spinal ultrasound is a viable alternative to X-ray, but manual annotation of images is difficult and time consuming. We propose using deep learning through a U-net neural network that takes consecutive images per individual input, as an enhancement over using single images as input for the neural network. <strong>METHODS:</strong> Ultrasound data was collected from nine healthy volunteers. Images were manually segmented. To accommodate for consecutive input images, the ultrasound images were exported along with previous images stacked to serve as input for a modified U-net. Resulting output segmentations were evaluated based on the percentage of true negative and true positive pixel predictions. <strong>RESULTS:</strong> After comparing the single to five-image input arrays, the three-image input had the best performance in terms of true positive value. The single input and three-input images were then further tested. The single image input neural network had a true negative rate of 99.79%, and a true positive rate of 63.56%. The three-image input neural network had a true negative rate of 99.75%, and a true positive rate of 66.64%. <strong>CONCLUSION:</strong> The three-image input network outperformed the single input network in terms of the true positive rate by 3.08%. These findings suggest that using two additional input images consecutively preceding the original image assist the neural network in making more accurate predictions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".