Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tremendous advancement takes place in the field of medical science. With this advancement, it is possible to support diagnosis and treatment planning for various diseases related to the abdominal organ. The liver is one of the adnominal organs, a common site for developing tumors. Liver disease is one of the main causes of death. Due to its complex and heterogeneous nature and shape, it is challenging to segment the liver and its tumor. There are numerous methods available for liver segmentation. Some are handcrafted, semi-automatic, and fully automatic. Image segmentation using deep learning techniques is becoming a very robust tool nowadays. There are many methods of liver segmentation which uses Deep Learning. This article provides the survey of the various liver segmentation schemes based on Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Convolution Neural network (CNN), Deep Belief network (DBN), Auto Encoder, Deep Feed-forward neural Network (DFNN), etc based on the architecture details, methodology, performance metrics and dataset details. Researchers are continuously putting efforts into improving these segmentation techniques. So this article give out a comprehensive review of deep learning-based liver segmentation techniques and highlights the advantages of the deep learning segmentation schemes over the traditional segmentation techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".