Deep learning‐based X‐ray inpainting for improving spinal 2D‐3D registration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two-dimensional (2D)-3D registration is challenging in the presence of implant projections on intraoperative images, which can limit the registration capture range. Here, we investigate the use of deep-learning-based inpainting for removing implant projections from the X-rays to improve the registration performance. METHODS: We trained deep-learning-based inpainting models that can fill in the implant projections on X-rays. Clinical datasets were collected to evaluate the inpainting based on six image similarity measures. The effect of X-ray inpainting on capture range of 2D-3D registration was also evaluated. RESULTS: The X-ray inpainting significantly improved the similarity between the inpainted images and the ground truth. When applying inpainting before the 2D-3D registration process, we demonstrated significant recovery of the capture range by up to 85%. CONCLUSION: Applying deep-learning-based inpainting on X-ray images masked by implants can markedly improve the capture range of the associated 2D-3D registration task.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".