MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The best of each capture – the combination of 3D laser scanning with photogrammetry for optimized digital anatomy specimens.

2020· article· en· W3016850901 on OpenAlexaff
Ishan Dixit, Connor Dunne, Paige Blumer, Curtis J. Logan, Ratthamnoon Prakitpong, Claudia Krebs

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotogrammetryVisualizationLaser scanningComputer scienceSoftwareComputer visionConsistency (knowledge bases)3D printingComputer graphics (images)3D reconstruction3d scanningArtificial intelligenceTexture mappingTexture (cosmology)Materials scienceLaserOpticsImage (mathematics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visualization of anatomical specimens has gone through an evolution from drawings to photographs and now 3D volumetric capture of dissected specimens. The technologies behind this 3D volumetric visualization are rapidly evolving and becoming more broadly accessible with improved hardware and software. There are two main approaches to 3D reconstruction: laser scanning and photogrammetry (PGM). Our previous work demonstrated that while laser scanning provides superior geometric accuracy, PGM delivers a more photorealistic texture. For accurate anatomical study, both a precise geometry and a photo‐realistic texture are necessary ‐ so we set out to combine both methods. We found that both methods individually and the combination capture method work best with rigid (plastinated or bony) specimens – but many dissected specimens are wet specimens, which tend to change in their geometry depending on how they are positioned on a surface for capture. We created a methodology to provide consistency and support for the geometry of wet specimens with an alginate cast and a rigging method for longer pieces such as vessels and nerves. The cast allows us to flip the specimen with minimal disturbance in order to capture all sides accurately with both 3D laser scanning and PGM. The two datasets are then combined in Artec Studio and Reality Capture software packages. The combination of these two methods results in a very accurate 3D geometric mesh of the specimen with a photorealistic texture, providing the most realistic 3D volumetric captures of complex anatomical specimens. The combination method is more time‐consuming than each of the methods individually and a greater level of care must be taken to prevent any misalignment between the two datasets. Many specimens can be captured in an accurate and satisfactory way with either PGM or 3D laser scanning alone, and some will require this combination capture. The advantages and limitations of each method need to be compared to the desired outcome. Our approach results in superior capture quality, especially for non‐rigid specimens. The digitization of both anatomical and pathological specimens can improve accessibility and distribution of high quality digital specimens for both education and research. Both ID and CD contributed equally to this work.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.009

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207