MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165415132 · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2021.3085019

A Deep Learning Localization Method for Measuring Abdominal Muscle Dimensions in Ultrasound Images

2021· article· en· W3165415132 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep learningUltrasoundConvolutional neural networkMeasure (data warehouse)Process (computing)Abdominal musclesPattern recognition (psychology)Image segmentationOperator (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health professionals extensively use Two-Dimensional (2D) Ultrasound (US) videos and images to visualize and measure internal organs for various purposes including evaluation of muscle architectural changes. US images can be used to measure abdominal muscles dimensions for the diagnosis and creation of customized treatment plans for patients with Low Back Pain (LBP), however, they are difficult to interpret. Due to high variability, skilled professionals with specialized training are required to take measurements to avoid low intra-observer reliability. This variability stems from the challenging nature of accurately finding the correct spatial location of measurement endpoints in abdominal US images. In this paper, we use a Deep Learning (DL) approach to automate the measurement of the abdominal muscle thickness in 2D US images. By treating the problem as a localization task, we develop a modified Fully Convolutional Network (FCN) architecture to generate blobs of coordinate locations of measurement endpoints, similar to what a human operator does. We demonstrate that using the TrA400 US image dataset, our network achieves a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 0.3125 on the test set, which almost matches the performance of skilled ultrasound technicians. Our approach can facilitate next steps for automating the process of measurements in 2D US images, while reducing inter-observer as well as intra-observer variability for more effective clinical outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health InformaticsSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207