MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dual-Branch Vascular Segmentation Model Based on Anisotropic Attention

2024· article· zh· W7102388646 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2024
Typearticle
Languagezh
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationPattern recognition (psychology)Feature (linguistics)AnisotropyBoundary (topology)Scale-space segmentationImage segmentationTree (set theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vascular segmentation is significant for diagnosing and treating vascular diseases. However, because of the fuzzy boundary of vessels, the variable shape of diseased vessels, and the significant differences between different samples, the segmentation model should accurately determine the differences between vessels and background classes and analyze the connectivity within vessels. This study proposes a novel three-dimensional vascular segmentation network, CAU-Net, based on centerline constraints and anisotropic attention. In response to the difficulties in vascular segmentation, the basic network structure, ResU-Net, is improved to construct an anisotropic attention module. This module extracts vascular spatial anisotropic features from three directions based on the unique spatial anisotropy of the vascular structure and models the correlation between feature channels to learn the three-dimensional spatial information of the vessels. By using the main auxiliary dual-branch model, b-Net performs semantic segmentation on vessels, whereas a-Net learns the continuity features of vessel centerlines, constrains the vascular segmentation results of b-Net, and ensures the integrity of the vascular segmentation results. The experimental results on the publicly available dataset 3D-IRCADb-01 shows that for the segmentation of portal and hepatic veins, CAU-Net achieves Dice coefficients of (74.80±8.05)% and (76.14±6.89)%, NSD coefficients of(54.80±8.09)% and(50.40±5.22)%, clDice coefficients of (72.43±8.26)% and(70.84±6.05)%, Branch Detection(BD) rates of (46.47±12.89)% and(39.19±7.97)%, and Tree length Detection(TD) rates of(67.08±15.59)% and(61.47±9.32)%, respectively. Component ablation experiments are conducted on the publicly available cerebrovascular dataset IXI, and the average Dice, NSD, clDice, BD, and TD values of the model on the validation set are(94.11±0.39)%, (96.53±0.37)%, (95.83±0.59)%, (98.64±1.63)%, and(95.44±1.22)%, respectively. Compared to the Baseline, the average Dice, NSD, clDice, BD, and TD values of the proposed model increased by 0.92%, 0.82%, 0.92%, 1.11%, and 1.60%, respectively. The CAU-Net vascular segmentation model can significantly improve the accuracy and completeness of vascular segmentation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.373 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207