MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229444915 · doi:10.18280/ts.390239

Orchard Boumans Algorithm and MRF Approach Based on Full Threshold Segmentation for Dental X-Ray Images

2022· article· en· W4229444915 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vikram Rajpoot, Rahul Dubey, Safdar Sardar Khan, Saumil Maheshwari, Abhishek Dixit, Arpit Deo, Nitika Vats Doohan

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial intelligenceImage segmentationMixture modelComputer scienceScale-space segmentationGaussianQuantization (signal processing)Computer visionPixelPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dental X-ray segmentation uses different image processing (IP) methods helpful in diagnosing medical applications, clinical purposes & in real-time. These methods aim to define the segmentation of various tooth structures in dental X-rays which are utilized to identify caries, tooth fractures, treatment of root canals, periodontal diseases, etc. The manual segmentation of Dental X-ray images for medical diagnosis is very complex and time-consuming from broad clinical databases. Orchard & Bouman is a color quantization approach used to evaluate a successful cluster division using an eigenvector of a color covariance matrix. It is repeated until the number of target clusters is reached. It is optimal for large clusters with Gaussian distributions to integrate different types of information on probabilism and spatial constraint by iteratively upgrading the later probability of the proposed model. Results of segmentation are achieved when iteration converges. Testing the proposed model's effectiveness will involve texture, distance sensing, and nature images. Experimental results show that our model achieves a higher segmentation precision with approximately 78.98 PSNR than MRF models based on pixels or regions.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicDental Radiography and ImagingFrench-language works237,207