Statistical shape model of the spine fitting study: impact of clipping the latent representation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistical shape models (SSMs) represent the distribution of labeled points across a training set of shapes. The standard practice for SSMs based on principal component analysis (PCA) is to use clipping, thresholding the latent representation so that all shapes lie within 3 standard deviations of the mean. This practice precludes the representation of shapes that are not well represented by the training set, constraining the model to realistic solutions, but making it impossible to work with shapes at the edges of the statistical population. In this study, we investigate the impact of clipping in a PCA-based SSM and whether using L2 regularization is a good replacement for clipping in the context of the automatic 2D to 3D reconstruction of the spine. We first show that using L2 regularization is equivalent to using a probabilistic PCA with two error variables, accounting for the suppression of the least important principal components and for the fact that the training set cannot perfectly represent all shapes at test time. Secondly, we use two data sets of 1746 and 768 patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis to study the effect of regularization, for different regularization weights and with or without clipping, for removing landmark detection errors using a simulated noise or a reconstruction pipeline. In both sets of experiments, we show that regularization removes noise in a way similar to clipping without preventing the reconstruction of out-of-distribution shapes, leading to outputs closer to ground truth, demonstrating that using a regularized SSM should be preferred to clipping.
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 | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".