Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative study reveals robust segmentation of iris nevi in biometric images, indicating improved analysis accuracy.
Updated release v5.1. Robustness fixes applied after validation on real biometric images (Kaggle MMU NIR dataset) and synthetic simulator. Architecture unchanged — fixes improve segmentation stability across iris phenotypes and image modalities. SUBJECT A (brown iris, calibrated): 29 nevi. D_global=1.868.D_nevi=1.572±0.115. Auric Index A=0.847. p=0.993. SUBJECT B/OL (green-hazel, sectorial heterochromia, calibrated): 23 nevi. D_global=1.836. D_nevi=1.629±0.086. Auric Index A=0.840. p=0.999. SYNTHETIC VALIDATION (brown_dark, golden_org=0.78 injected):Auric Index A=0.847 recovered. p=0.963. D_global=1.849.Confirms Auric Index correctly measures golden angle organization. EXTERNAL VALIDATION (Kaggle MMU NIR, 2 images):Pipeline runs end-to-end without errors on real external images.n_nevi=1-3 (expected for NIR biometric format, not clinical). NEW v5.1 fixes:- NEVI_MIN_AREA: 30 → 80 px (reduces edge fragmentation)- Adaptive LAB sigma: 1.5 → 1.0 (NIR + visible color compatible)- Saturation filter percentile: 25% → 10% (permissive for NIR)- QC checks: fatal errors → non-fatal warnings (analysis always continues)- Morphological opening 3×3 added in adaptive LAB segmentation Both subjects maintain A≈0.84 with p>0.99.Validation requires n=40-50 cohort. Related preprint: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18781344Phyllotaxis base: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18760369Dataset v2: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18799576Dataset v3: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18803498
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jose Ranero García (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: