MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234369753 · doi:10.1117/12.440246

<title>Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging</title>

2001· article· en· W4234369753 on OpenAlexafffund
Aaron Fenster, Dónal B. Downey

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsUltrasound3D ultrasoundComputer scienceVisualizationUltrasound imagingMedical diagnosisComputer visionMedical imagingArtificial intelligenceOrientation (vector space)TransducerMedical physicsMedicineRadiologyAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last two decades have witnessed unprecedented developments of imaging systems making use of 3D visualization. These new technologies have revolutionized diagnostic radiology, by providing information about the interior of the human body never before available. Ultrasound imaging is an important cost-effective technique used routinely in the management of a number of diseases. However, technical improvements are needed before its full potential is realized, particularly in applications involving minimally invasive therapy or surgery. 2D viewing of 3D anatomy, using conventional ultrasound, limits our ability to quantify and visualize the anatomy and guide therapy. This occurs because the use of 2D ultrasound requires that the diagnostician integrate multiple images in his mind. This practice is inefficient, and may lead to variability and incorrect diagnoses. Also, the 2D ultrasound image represents a thin plane at an arbitrary angle in the body. It is difficult to localize the image plane, and reproduce it at a later time. Over the past 2 decades, investigators have addressed these limitations by developing 3D ultrasound techniques. In this paper we describe our developments of 3D ultrasound techniques for imaging organs such as the prostate, breast, and kidney. To produce a 3D image, the ultrasound transducer is scanned mechanically or using a free-hand technique. The images are digitized and then reconstructed into a 3D image, which can be viewed and manipulated interactively. In addition, the user can segment the organ and measure its volume manually or using semi-automatic techniques. In this paper we describe the use of 3D ultrasound for diagnosis, image-guided therapy and quantifying organ volume. Examples will be given for imaging various organs, such as the prostate, carotid arteries, and breast, and for the use in 3D ultrasound-guided brachytherapy. In addition, we describe 3D segmentation methods that can be used for analysis of the volume of the prostate and carotid vessel lumen using 3D ultrasound images. The segmentation techniques applied to 3D ultrasound images has been shown to be less variable than manual segmentation techniques and of value in both 3D ultrasound-guided prostate brachytherapy and in the assessment of carotid plaque progression/regression.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5630.507

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207