MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4363650224 · doi:10.1117/12.2653277

Lamina landmark detection in ultrasound images: a preliminary study

2023· article· en· W4363650224 on OpenAlexaff
Sen Li, Lou Gauthier, Farida Chériet, Carole Fortin, Philippe Paquette, Catherine Laporte

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de MontréalÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandmarkLaminaArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionAnatomical landmarkDeep learningPixelUltrasoundPattern recognition (psychology)AnatomyMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Freehand (FH) 3D ultrasound (US) imaging is emerging as a promising modality for spine imaging because it is non-invasive and inexpensive. Among the vertebral landmarks that can be used to represent the spine, paired laminae can play a vital role in a transverse scan for 3D spine deformity analysis by providing symmetry information. However, there is currently no laminae landmark recognition algorithm that has been tested on poor-quality 2D US scans. In this study, we propose a deep learning framework to automatically and simultaneously assess the presence of two laminae and estimate their landmark coordinates for the purpose of live US-based assessment of spine shape. To label the training data, we propose a labeling protocol based on a weight distribution on the virtual bone surface to make the pixel representative most likely the closest pixel to the spinal cord. In total, 6 FH 3D US sequences of the spine covering vertebrae T1 to L5 were collected from 3 participants. They were labeled based on the proposed protocol and validated by two spine ultrasound experts. The performance of the deep learning-based lamina landmark detection method was assessed through K-Fold cross-validation, with results reaching a mean distance error of 2.1 ± 1.3(mm) and 1.8 ± 1.2(mm) in true-positive images for left and right lamina landmarks respectively. Our method could allow for live laminae landmark extraction during clinical US spine exams, which would be useful for spinal ultrasound image interpretation, vertebral level identification, and spine deformity analysis in 3D based on paired laminae landmarks projected on three anatomical planes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207