MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980012993 · doi:10.1118/1.4734931

SU‐E‐J‐95: Towards Optimum Boundary Conditions for Biomechanical Model Based Deformable Registration Using Intensity Based Image Matching for Prostate Correlative Pathology

2012· article· en· W1980012993 on OpenAlexaffabout
Navid Samavati, Deirdre M. McGrath, J Lee, Theodorus van der Kwast, Michael A.S. Jewett, C Ménard, Josien P. W. Pluim, Kristy K. Brock

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage registrationMagnetic resonance imagingEx vivoArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionNuclear medicineBiomedical engineeringIn vivoMedicineRadiologyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Deformable registration of histology to MRI is an essential tool to validate in vivo prostate cancer imaging. However, direct registration of histology to in vivo MR is prone to error due to geometric differences between the tissue sections and the in vivo imaging planes. To increase the accuracy of registration, an ex vivo high resolution MRI is acquired to compensate for the direct registration difficulties. A novel intensity-based deformable registration algorithm based on local variation in image intensities is proposed to register the histology to ex vivo MRI of prostatectomy specimens. METHODS: Four sets of ex vivo MR and whole mount pathology images from four patients were used to investigate and validate the technique. In addition, 9 synthetically deformed ex vivo MR images were used. The standard deviation in local windows within the images was calculated to generate intermediate images based on both MR and histology. The intermediate images were registered using the Drop package (Munich, Germany). To further increase the accuracy, a final refinement of the registration was performed using Drop with a finer B-spline rid. The registration parameters were tuned to achieve a visually acceptable registration. Magnitude of Differences (MOD) and Angular Error (AE) were used to validate the synthetic data, and the Target Registration Error (TRE) of manually indicated landmarks was used for the clinical data. RESULTS: MOD of 0.6mm and AE of 8.3 degrees showed the efficacy of using intermediate images, compared to 0.8mm and 10.0 degrees achieved with Drop without the intermediate images. The average mean±std TRE among the four patients was 1.0±0.6 mm using the proposed method compared to 1.6±1.1 mm using Elastix (Utrecht, The Netherlands). CONCLUSIONS: An intensity-based deformable registration algorithm which uses intermediate images was evaluated on prostatectomy specimens and synthetically deformed clinical data, indicating improvement in overall accuracy and robustness. OICR, Terry Fox Ultrasound for Cancer Therapy. Dr. Brock is a Cancer Care Ontario Research Chair in Cancer Imaging and has financial interest in deformable registration technology through the licensing of Morfeus to RaySearch Laboratories.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207