Fusion of middle ear optical coherence tomography and computed tomography in three ears
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Importance Middle ear OCT imaging in patients has not previously been directly compared to a standard of care clinical 3D imaging technology such as CT. This represents the first such comparison and provides new insight into OCT’s capabilities, strengths and limitations. Objective To qualitatively compare the capabilities of middle ear OCT to CT in normal and pathological ears on representative slices in co-registered OCT and CT datasets. Design, Setting, and Participants One normal middle ear, one ear affected by traumatic injury and one ear with cholesteatoma were imaged with both OCT and high-resolution clinical temporal bone CT. Participants were drawn from the patient population of a tertiary otology clinic. CT and OCT images were aligned using rigid co-registration with manual landmark selection. Main Outcomes and Measures Images were analyzed qualitatively for field of view, resolution, shadowing, artefacts, soft tissue and bony tissue contrast and presentation of diagnostically important features. Results In the three imaged ears, OCT was capable of visualizing many of the important features indicative of middle ear pathology. When compared to CT, OCT was found to exhibit a limited field of view (FOV) largely confined to the mesotympanum and subject to shadowing from bony structures. However, OCT could resolve soft tissue features that were not readily apparent in the CT images, to have a higher resolution than CT and to provide excellent anatomical fidelity with CT which allowed OCT images to be accurately co-registered with CT images. Conclusions and Relevance The results support a role for middle ear OCT in otological diagnostics. While OCT is not capable of replacing CT due to its limited FOV and inability to image through thick bony tissues, it can visualize many signs of pathology including some soft tissue features that are difficult to visualize with CT. Given OCT’s ability to image in real-time, its compatibility with in-office imaging and its lack of ionizing radiation, it may, despite its limitations compared to CT, be an appealing imaging modality for many applications in middle ear diagnostics. Key Points Question (1 sentence) What are the strengths and limitations of middle ear optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging compared to computed tomography (CT) in real-world clinical imaging scenarios? Finding (1-2 sentence) OCT and CT imaging produce complementary diagnostic information with CT offering unobstructed images of bony anatomy and OCT providing the ability to visualize soft tissue. Meaning (1 sentence) OCT, CT and fused OCT/CT imaging can each provide useful, complementary diagnostic information in clinical otology.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».