MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982289280 · doi:10.1117/12.844255

High-accuracy registration of intraoperative CT imaging

2010· article· en· W1982289280 on OpenAlexafffund
Anton Oentoro, Randy E. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsComputer scienceImage registrationMedical imagingComputer visionComputed tomographyArtificial intelligenceRadiologyMedicineImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image-guided interventions using intraoperative 3D imaging can be less cumbersome than systems dependent on preoperative images, especially by needing neither potentially invasive image-to-patient registration nor a lengthy process of segmenting and generating a 3D surface model. In this study, a method for computer-assisted surgery using direct navigation on intraoperative imaging is presented. In this system the registration step of a navigated procedure was divided into two stages: preoperative calibration of images to a ceiling-mounted optical tracking system, and intraoperative tracking during acquisition of the 3D medical image volume. The preoperative stage used a custom-made multi-modal calibrator that could be optically tracked and also contained fiducial spheres for radiological detection; a robust registration algorithm was used to compensate for the very high false-detection rate that was due to the high physical density of the optical light-emitting diodes. Intraoperatively, a tracking device was attached to plastic bone models that were also instrumented with radio-opaque spheres; A calibrated pointer was used to contact the latter spheres as a validation of the registration. Experiments showed that the fiducial registration error of the preoperative calibration stage was approximately 0.1 mm. The target registration error in the validation stage was approximately 1.2 mm. This study suggests that direct registration, coupled with procedure-specific graphical rendering, is potentially a highly accurate means of performing image-guided interventions in a fast, simple manner.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207