MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233711253 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2006.4397912

Segmentation of Prostate from 3-D Ultrasound Volumes Using Shape and Intensity Priors in Level Set Framework

2006· article· en· W4233711253 on OpenAlexaff
Fuxing Yang, Jasjit S. Suri, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

VenueConference proceedings · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLevel set (data structures)Prior probabilityComputer scienceSegmentationImage segmentationArtificial intelligenceComputer visionIntensity (physics)Set (abstract data type)Level set methodUltrasoundPattern recognition (psychology)RadiologyMedicineBayesian probabilityPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a fully automatic prostate segmentation system in transrectal ultrasound images based on 3-D shape and intensity priors. 2-D manual segmentations from training image data are stacked to create the coarse 3-D shape. Min/Max flow is used to transform each coarse shape into smooth 3-D surface. Principle component analysis method is utilized to extract the 3-D shape mode from the training data sets. In a Bayesian inference, the nonlinear shape model is integrated with a nonparametric intensity prior and define a region based energy function. The energy is minimized in a level set frameworks and the control parameters of the convergence lead to the final segmentation. The developed method was tested on 3-D transrectal ultrasound images and its performance compared with manually-defined ground truth. The correct segmentation rate is 0.82

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference proceedingsSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207