2007
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-73273-0_11
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spine Detection and Labeling Using a Parts-Based Graphical Model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
74
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 114 publications
(76 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
74
2
Order By: Relevance
“…A common approach for vertebra (in CT) and intervertebral disks (in MRI) is to employ a multi-stage approach. In the first stage a detector in the form of a filter [1,2], a single/multi-class classifier [3][4][5][6][7][8] or a model-based Hough transform [9] is used to detect potential vertebra candidates. As these candidates may contain many false positive responses a second stage is applied to add robustness.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A common approach for vertebra (in CT) and intervertebral disks (in MRI) is to employ a multi-stage approach. In the first stage a detector in the form of a filter [1,2], a single/multi-class classifier [3][4][5][6][7][8] or a model-based Hough transform [9] is used to detect potential vertebra candidates. As these candidates may contain many false positive responses a second stage is applied to add robustness.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [2], a clever search is performed based on prior information through the candidates, while [1,4,5] fit a low order polynomial curve to the candidates to remove outliers. In [3,6,8,9] the authors add prior information via graphical models, such as Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) [10], and infer the maximum a-posteriori (MAP) estimate for the vertebrae locations. In contrast, [11,12] use a fully generative model, and inference is achieved via generalized expectation-maximization, while in [7] deformable templates are used for segmentation and subsequent identification.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared with the best cross validation results by Schmidt et al [10], the results obtained with our approach are significantly better. While a competitive but still smaller sensitivity of 97% is reported, they only achieve a position error of 5.1mm.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 49%
“…Furthermore, no orientation estimates are provided and the approach takes several minutes to run. Furthremore, in contrast to Schmidt et al [10], we did not perform any posterior search at the positions of missing disks which could further increase our sensitivity.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation