MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157860598 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2021.3077047

AutoImplant 2020-First MICCAI Challenge on Automatic Cranial Implant Design

2021· review· en· W3157860598 on OpenAlexaff
Pedro Pimentel, Angelika Szengel, Moritz Ehlke, Hans Lamecker, Stefan Zachow, Laura Estacio, Christian Doenitz, Heiko Ramm, Haochen Shi, Xiaojun Chen, Franco Matzkin, Virginia Newcombe, Enzo Ferrante, Yuan Jin, David Ellis, Michele R. Aizenberg, Oldřich Kodym, Michal Španěl, Adam Herout, James G. Mainprize, Zachary Fishman, Michael Hardisty, Amirhossein Bayat, Suprosanna Shit, Bomin Wang, Zhi Liu, Matthias Eder, Antonio Pepe, Christina Gsaxner, Victor Alves, Ulrike Zefferer, Gord von Campe, Karin Pistracher, Ute Schäfer, Dieter Schmalstieg, Bjoern Menze, Ben Glocker, Jan Egger

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Hospital
FundersAustrian Science FundSteirische WirtschaftsförderungsgesellschaftAcademy of Medical SciencesNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsComputer scienceMedical physicsData scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview of the MICCAI 2020 AutoImplant Challenge. The approaches and publications submitted and accepted within the challenge will be summarized and reported, highlighting common algorithmic trends and algorithmic diversity. Furthermore, the evaluation results will be presented, compared and discussed in regard to the challenge aim: seeking for low cost, fast and fully automated solutions for cranial implant design. Based on feedback from collaborating neurosurgeons, this paper concludes by stating open issues and post-challenge requirements for intra-operative use. The codes can be found at https://github.com/Jianningli/tmi.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations54
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207