A novel shape‐similarity‐based elastography technique for prostate cancer assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Association between tissue stiffness alteration and pathology is well known. This has formed the basis for prostate elastography imaging techniques where images of prostate tissue mechanical properties are reconstructed. In this paper, the authors present a novel prostate elastography technique which, unlike other techniques, relies on magnitude image data only. METHODS: This proposed technique works in conjunction with ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging modalities and it requires the prostate's pre- and postdeformation images as input. It uses a constrained reconstruction method where the elastic moduli of the prostate's normal and pathological tissues are determined based on an essential subset of the tissue deformation provided by the images data. The elasticity reconstruction technique uses optimization where similarity between calculated and observed shape features of the postcompression prostate image is maximized. The method was validated with an in silico phantom study followed by studies using ultrasound and MR with tissue-mimicking phantoms. RESULTS: Using the proposed methods, it was observed that the maximum uncertainties of the reconstructed Young's modulus ratios of tumor to normal tissue were 15.6% and 9.7%, which were obtained from the transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and MR tissue-mimicking phantom studies, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This novel prostate elastography technique relies on prostate TRUS or MRI images that can be routinely acquired without additional imaging hardware. The phantom studies provided evidence that the proposed technique has a good potential to reconstruct prostate stiffness maps noninvasively particularly when applied in conjunction with MRI. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the technique's merits for clinical use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".