Change of shell structure and magnetic moments of odd-N deformed nuclei towards neutron drip line

Examples of the change of neutron shell-structure in both weakly-bound and resonant neutron one-particle levels in nuclei towards the neutron drip line are exhibited. It is shown that the shell-structure change due to the weak binding may lead to the deformation of those nuclei with the neutron numbers $N \approx$ 8, 20, 28 and 40, which are known to be magic numbers in stable nuclei. Nuclei in the "island of inversion" are most easily and in a simple manner understood in terms of deformation. As an example of spectroscopic properties other than single-particle energies, magnetic moments of some weakly-bound possibly deformed odd-N nuclei with neutron numbers close to those traditional magic numbers are given, which are calculated using the wave function of the last odd particle in deformed Woods-Saxon potentials.Comment: 21 pages, 6 figure

Comparative validation of single-shot optical techniques for laparoscopic 3-D surface reconstruction

Intra-operative imaging techniques for obtaining the shape and morphology of soft-tissue surfaces in vivo are a key enabling technology for advanced surgical systems. Different optical techniques for 3-D surface reconstruction in laparoscopy have been proposed, however, so far no quantitative and comparative validation has been performed. Furthermore, robustness of the methods to clinically important factors like smoke or bleeding has not yet been assessed. To address these issues, we have formed a joint international initiative with the aim of validating different state-of-the-art passive and active reconstruction methods in a comparative manner. In this comprehensive in vitro study, we investigated reconstruction accuracy using different organs with various shape and texture and also tested reconstruction robustness with respect to a number of factors like the pose of the endoscope as well as the amount of blood or smoke present in the scene. The study suggests complementary advantages of the different techniques with respect to accuracy, robustness, point density, hardware complexity and computation time. While reconstruction accuracy under ideal conditions was generally high, robustness is a remaining issue to be addressed. Future work should include sensor fusion and in vivo validation studies in a specific clinical context. To trigger further research in surface reconstruction, stereoscopic data of the study will be made publically available at www.open-CAS.com upon publication of the paper

2018 Robotic Scene Segmentation Challenge

In 2015 we began a sub-challenge at the EndoVis workshop at MICCAI in Munich using endoscope images of ex-vivo tissue with automatically generated annotations from robot forward kinematics and instrument CAD models. However, the limited background variation and simple motion rendered the dataset uninformative in learning about which techniques would be suitable for segmentation in real surgery. In 2017, at the same workshop in Quebec we introduced the robotic instrument segmentation dataset with 10 teams participating in the challenge to perform binary, articulating parts and type segmentation of da Vinci instruments. This challenge included realistic instrument motion and more complex porcine tissue as background and was widely addressed with modifications on U-Nets and other popular CNN architectures. In 2018 we added to the complexity by introducing a set of anatomical objects and medical devices to the segmented classes. To avoid over-complicating the challenge, we continued with porcine data which is dramatically simpler than human tissue due to the lack of fatty tissue occluding many organs

Why is the Winner the Best?

International benchmarking competitions have become fundamental for the comparative performance assessment of image analysis methods. However, little attention has been given to investigating what can be learnt from these competitions. Do they really generate scientific progress? What are common and successful participation strategies? What makes a solution superior to a competing method? To address this gap in the literature, we performed a multicenter study with all 80 competitions that were conducted in the scope of IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021. Statistical analyses performed based on comprehensive descriptions of the submitted algorithms linked to their rank as well as the underlying participation strategies revealed common characteristics of winning solutions. These typically include the use of multi-task learning (63%) and/or multi-stage pipelines (61%), and a focus on augmentation (100%), image preprocessing (97%), data curation (79%), and post-processing (66%). The “typical” lead of a winning team is a computer scientist with a doctoral degree, five years of experience in biomedical image analysis, and four years of experience in deep learning. Two core general development strategies stood out for highly-ranked teams: the reflection of the metrics in the method design and the focus on analyzing and handling failure cases. According to the organizers, 43% of the winning algorithms exceeded the state of the art but only 11% completely solved the respective domain problem. The insights of our study could help researchers (1) improve algorithm development strategies when approaching new problems, and (2) focus on open research questions revealed by this work

Why is the winner the best?

International benchmarking competitions have become fundamental for the comparative performance assessment of image analysis methods. However, little attention has been given to investigating what can be learnt from these competitions. Do they really generate scientific progress? What are common and successful participation strategies? What makes a solution superior to a competing method? To address this gap in the literature, we performed a multicenter study with all 80 competitions that were conducted in the scope of IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021. Statistical analyses performed based on comprehensive descriptions of the submitted algorithms linked to their rank as well as the underlying participation strategies revealed common characteristics of winning solutions. These typically include the use of multi-task learning (63%) and/or multi-stage pipelines (61%), and a focus on augmentation (100%), image preprocessing (97%), data curation (79%), and post-processing (66%). The 'typical' lead of a winning team is a computer scientist with a doctoral degree, five years of experience in biomedical image analysis, and four years of experience in deep learning. Two core general development strategies stood out for highly-ranked teams: the reflection of the metrics in the method design and the focus on analyzing and handling failure cases. According to the organizers, 43% of the winning algorithms exceeded the state of the art but only 11% completely solved the respective domain problem. The insights of our study could help researchers (1) improve algorithm development strategies when approaching new problems, and (2) focus on open research questions revealed by this work