Validating a Semi-Automated Technique for Segmenting Femoral Articular Cartilage on Ultrasound Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To validate a semi-automated technique to segment ultrasound-assessed femoral cartilage without compromising segmentation accuracy to a traditional manual segmentation technique in participants with an anterior cruciate ligament injury (ACL). Design We recruited 27 participants with a primary unilateral ACL injury at a pre-operative clinic visit. One investigator performed a transverse suprapatellar ultrasound scan with the participant’s ACL injured knee in maximum flexion. Three femoral cartilage ultrasound images were recorded. A single expert reader manually segmented the femoral cartilage cross-sectional area in each image. In addition, we created a semi-automatic program to segment the cartilage using a random walker-based method. We quantified the average cartilage thickness and echo-intensity for the manual and semi-automated segmentations. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC 2,k ) and Bland-Altman plots were used to validate the semi-automated technique to the manual segmentation for assessing average cartilage thickness and echo-intensity. A dice correlation coefficient was used to quantify the overlap between the segmentations created with the semi-automated and manual techniques. Results For average cartilage thickness, there was excellent reliability (ICC 2,k = 0.99) and a small mean difference (+0.8%) between the manual and semi-automated segmentations. For average echo-intensity, there was excellent reliability (ICC 2,k = 0.97) and a small mean difference (−2.5%) between the manual and semi-automated segmentations. The average dice correlation coefficient between the manual segmentation and semi-automated segmentation was 0.90, indicating high overlap between techniques. Conclusions Our novel semi-automated segmentation technique is a valid method that requires less technical expertise and time than manual segmentation in patients after ACL injury.
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 | 0.023 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".