Automatic segmentation and tracking of biological prosthetic heart valves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Prosthetic heart valve designs must be rigorously tested using cardiovascular equipment. The valve orifice area over time constitutes a key quality metric which is typically assessed manually, thus a tedious and error-prone task. From a computer vision viewpoint, a major unsolved issue lies in the orifice being partly occluded by the leaflets’ inner side or inaccurately depicted due to its transparency. Here, we address this issue, which allows us to focus on the accurate and automatic computation of valve orifice areas. Approach: We propose a segmentation approach based on the detection of the leaflets’ free edges. Using video frames recorded with a high-speed digital camera during in vitro simulations, an initial estimation of the orifice area is first obtained via active contouring and thresholding and then refined to capture the leaflet free edges via a curve transformation mechanism. Results: Experiments on video data from pulsatile flow testing demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach: a root-mean-square error (RMSE) on the temporal extracted orifice areas between 0.8% and 1.2%, an average Jaccard similarity coefficient between 0.933 and 0.956, and an average Hausdorff distance between 7.2 and 11.9 pixels. Conclusions: Our approach significantly outperformed a state-of-the-art algorithm in terms of evaluation metrics related to valve design (RMSE) and computer vision (accuracy of the orifice shape). It can also cope with lower quality videos and is better at processing frames showing an almost closed valve, a crucial quality for assessing valve design malfunctions related to their improper closing.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".