MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978202284 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2010.2059709

REDMAPS: Reduced-Dimensionality Matching for Prostate Brachytherapy Seed Reconstruction

2010· article· en· W1978202284 on OpenAlexaff
Junghoon Lee, Christian Labat, Ameet Jain, Danny Y. Song, Everette C. Burdette, Gábor Fichtinger, Jerry L. Prince

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsBrachytherapyCurse of dimensionalityMatching (statistics)Prostate brachytherapyIterative reconstructionComputer visionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedical physicsRadiologyMedicineRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The success of prostate brachytherapy critically depends on delivering adequate dose to the prostate gland. Intraoperative localization of the implanted seeds provides potential for dose evaluation and optimization during therapy. A reduced-dimensionality matching algorithm for prostate brachytherapy seed reconstruction (REDMAPS) that uses multiple X-ray fluoroscopy images obtained from different poses is proposed. The seed reconstruction problem is formulated as a combinatorial optimization problem, and REDMAPS finds a solution in a clinically acceptable amount of time using dimensionality reduction to create a smaller space of possible solutions. Dimensionality reduction is possible since the optimal solution has approximately zero cost when the poses of the acquired images are known to be within a small error. REDMAPS is also formulated to address the "hidden seed problem" in which seeds overlap on one or more observed images. REDMAPS uses a pruning algorithm to avoid unnecessary computation of cost metrics and the reduced problem is solved using linear programming. REDMAPS was first evaluated and its parameters tuned using simulations. It was then validated using five phantom and 21 patient datasets. REDMAPS was successful in reconstructing the seeds with an overall seed matching rate above 99% and a reconstruction error below 1 mm in less than 5 s.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207