MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232548367 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2006.4397911

3D Prostate Boundary Segmentation From Ultrasound Images Using 2D Active Shape Models

2006· article· en· W4232548367 on OpenAlexaff
Adam C. Hodge, Hanif M. Ladak

Bibliographic record

VenueConference proceedings · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionSegmentationComputer scienceImage segmentationBoundary (topology)Artificial intelligenceActive contour modelUltrasoundAcousticsMathematicsPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Boundary outlining, or segmentation, of the prostate is an important task in diagnosis and treatment planning for prostate cancer. This paper describes an algorithm for semi-automatic, three-dimensional (3D) segmentation of the prostate boundary from ultrasound images based on two-dimensional (2D) active shape models (ASM) and rotation-based slicing. Evaluation of the algorithm used distance- and volume-based error metrics to compare algorithm generated boundary outlines to gold standard (manually generated) boundary outlines. The mean absolute distance between the algorithm and gold standard boundaries was 1.09±0.49 mm, the average percent absolute volume difference was 3.28±3.16%, and a 5x speed increase as compared manual planimetry was achieved.

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 score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference proceedingsSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207