MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Fully Automated Analytical Segmentation of Animal Beds in Multi-Mouse PET/SPECT/CT Imaging with the Pre-Clinical VECTor6 Scanner

2025· article· W4417473065 on OpenAlexaff
C. R. Hunter, Jamie L. Sparling, S. Wentzell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJaccard indexScannerSegmentationGround truthAttenuationPattern recognition (psychology)Image segmentationNoise (video)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The VECTor6 PET/SPECT/CT pre-clinical imaging system enables simultaneous scanning of up to four mice using a shared animal bed, commonly referred to as a “mouse hotel”. This is particularly advantageous for high-throughput studies. For effective downstream analysis, it is desirable to isolate animals into individual images, center them, and remove the bed structure. Removing the bed facilitates the generation of maximum intensity projections (MIPs) and ensures standardized subject orientation. However, the mouse hotel and bed components are made of acrylic, which has attenuation properties similar to soft tissue, making segmentation challenging. In this study, images were acquired from five groups of four mice, each group imaged twice with a 24 -hour interval, resulting in 10 acquisitions and 40 individual mouse images. Axial rotational alignment was achieved using the 2D Radon transform, taking advantage of the mouse hotel's geometry and optimizing for peak values. Bed segmentation exploited material attenuation differences and implemented through multiple masks combined with connected component analysis to detect and remove bed structures. Manually segmented CT images were used as ground truth for validation. The automated method achieved an average Dice coefficient of 0.978 [0.972-0.984], Jaccard index of 0.958 [0.945-0.968], accuracy of 0.989 [0.984-0.992], precision of 0.959 [0.946-0.968], and recall of 0.999 [0.996-1.000]. Deviations primarily occurred near the snout, where isoflurane is delivered, and the ears, which were inconsistently captured. Overall, the results demonstrate a high degree of concordance with manual segmentation, while reducing processing time from 30 minutes to 3 minutes per scan.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→