Fast, automatic, and accurate catheter reconstruction in HDR brachytherapy using an electromagnetic 3D tracking system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-B), current catheter reconstruction protocols are relatively slow and error prone. The purpose of this technical note is to evaluate the accuracy and the robustness of an electromagnetic (EM) tracking system for automated and real-time catheter reconstruction. METHODS: For this preclinical study, a total of ten catheters were inserted in gelatin phantoms with different trajectories. Catheters were reconstructed using a 18G biopsy needle, used as an EM stylet and equipped with a miniaturized sensor, and the second generation Aurora(®) Planar Field Generator from Northern Digital Inc. The Aurora EM system provides position and orientation value with precisions of 0.7 mm and 0.2°, respectively. Phantoms were also scanned using a μCT (GE Healthcare) and Philips Big Bore clinical computed tomography (CT) system with a spatial resolution of 89 μm and 2 mm, respectively. Reconstructions using the EM stylet were compared to μCT and CT. To assess the robustness of the EM reconstruction, five catheters were reconstructed twice and compared. RESULTS: Reconstruction time for one catheter was 10 s, leading to a total reconstruction time inferior to 3 min for a typical 17-catheter implant. When compared to the μCT, the mean EM tip identification error was 0.69 ± 0.29 mm while the CT error was 1.08 ± 0.67 mm. The mean 3D distance error was found to be 0.66 ± 0.33 mm and 1.08 ± 0.72 mm for the EM and CT, respectively. EM 3D catheter trajectories were found to be more accurate. A maximum difference of less than 0.6 mm was found between successive EM reconstructions. CONCLUSIONS: The EM reconstruction was found to be more accurate and precise than the conventional methods used for catheter reconstruction in HDR-B. This approach can be applied to any type of catheters and applicators.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".