MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312496774 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2022.3232068

3D Morphology Measurement for Blastocyst Evaluation From “All Angles”

2022· article· en· W4312496774 on OpenAlexafffund
Guanqiao Shan, Changsheng Dai, Hang Liu, Xian Wang, Wenkun Dou, Zhuoran Zhang, Yu Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsBlastocystSegmentationInner cell massRotation (mathematics)Morphology (biology)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Scale-invariant feature transformBiological systemFeature (linguistics)DiceComputer scienceBiologyComputer visionBiomedical engineeringAnatomyEmbryoMathematicsCell biologyGeometryFeature extractionEmbryogenesisMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measuring the 3D morphology of spherical cell aggregates is required in both biology and medicine. Traditional methods either use fluorescent labeling, which cause cell toxicity and are unsuitable for clinical treatment, or use 2D images to roughly estimate 3D morphology. To overcome these limitations, this paper presents a quantitative label-free 3D morphology measurement technique using multi-view images. This technique, for the first time, enables the morphological evaluation of a blastocyst (Day 5 embryo) from “all angles” for IVF treatment. In this technique, a spherical rotation scale invariant feature transform (SR-SIFT) is proposed to address feature distortions for the rotation matrix calculation of the multi-view images. U-Net with generalized Dice loss is used to segment individual trophectoderm (TE) cells and the inner cell mass (ICM) of the blastocyst. Based on the rotation matrices and the segmentation results, the 3D morphological parameters of the entire blastocyst were quantified. Experimental results showed that the error of rotation angle was less than 1 <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$^\circ$</tex-math></inline-formula> , the Dice was 95.6% for TE segmentation and 92.3% for ICM segmentation, and the overall measurement error of clinically defined blastocyst parameters was less than 6.7%.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207