Prostate contouring in MRI guided biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With MRI possibly becoming a modality of choice for detection and staging of prostate cancer, fast and accurate outlining of the prostate is required in the volume of clinical interest. We present a semi-automatic algorithm that uses a priori knowledge of prostate shape to arrive at the final prostate contour. The contour of one slice is then used as initial estimate in the neighboring slices. Thus we propagate the contour in 3D through steps of refinement in each slice. The algorithm makes only minimum assumptions about the prostate shape. A statistical shape model of prostate contour in polar transform space is employed to narrow search space. Further, shape guidance is implicitly imposed by allowing only plausible edge orientations using template matching. The algorithm does not require region-homogeneity, discriminative edge force, or any particular edge profile. Likewise, it makes no assumption on the imaging coils and pulse sequences used and it is robust to the patient's pose (supine, prone, etc.). The contour method was validated using expert segmentation on clinical MRI data. We recorded a mean absolute distance of 2.0 ± 0.6 mm and dice similarity coefficient of 0.93 ± 0.3 in midsection. The algorithm takes about 1 second per slice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".