2020
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2009.02878
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Benchmarking off-the-shelf statistical shape modeling tools in clinical applications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The statistical shape model was evaluated using three commonly used parameters: compactness, generalization ability and specificity 50 . Compactness is the ability of the model to require as few parameters (PC modes) as possible to describe shape instances.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The statistical shape model was evaluated using three commonly used parameters: compactness, generalization ability and specificity 50 . Compactness is the ability of the model to require as few parameters (PC modes) as possible to describe shape instances.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We use ShapeWorks [13] to generate the PDMs used in the experiments presented in this work. In a recent benchmarking study [22,23], ShapeWorks was shown to discover clinically relevant shape differences. However, any set of correspondences (i.e., a PDM or even manual landmarks) can be utilized for the proposed model.…”
Section: Data Augmentationmentioning
confidence: 99%