MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119837896

Fully Automated Fibroglandular Tissue Segmentation and Bias Correction in Breast MR Images Using Level Set Method

2016· article· en· W3119837896 on OpenAlexaff
Mehri Owjimehr, Elise Fear

Bibliographic record

VenueCMBES Proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial intelligenceImage segmentationComputer visionBackground subtractionComputer scienceImage processingBreast tissueIntensity (physics)SubtractionData setBreast MRIMagnetic resonance imagingPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsPixelMammographyImage (mathematics)PhysicsRadiologyOpticsMedicineBreast cancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper an image processing method is proposed for bias correction and fibroglandular tissue segmentation from Magnetic Resonance Images (MRI) of human breast. The proposed method is based on level sets and includes three steps. In the pre-processing step, a chest wall line detection method is applied to separate the chest wall from the breast region in the MR images of breast. In the next step, a new level set algorithm is employed to estimate the bias field. The bias field estimation is used for intensity inhomogeneity correction, which leads to an efficient segmentation of the fibroglandular tissue. Finally, in the post-processing step, the skin layer is detected using morphological operations, and the fibroglandular tissue is extracted after skin layer subtraction. The proposed method has been validated on 2D images of an MR scan of the human breast. The implementation results show efficient performance of this method in tissue segmentation of MR images with the presence of intensity inhomogeneity.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMBES ProceedingsSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207