Needle-tissue interaction modeling using ultrasound-based motion estimation: Phantom study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Needle insertion simulators find use in a number of medical interventions, such as prostate brachytherapy. A needle insertion simulator has three main components: the needle model, the tissue model, and the model of interaction between the needle and the tissue. In this paper, a new methodology is introduced for the joint modeling of tissue and needle-tissue interactions. The approach consists of the measurement of tissue motion using ultrasound, and of the needle position and base force. Tissue motion is determined using a correlation-based algorithm that processes the ultrasound radiofrequency data. The tissue elastic parameters and the parameters of the tissue-needle interaction model are determined by using numerical optimization to match the response of the needle insertion model to the measured data. Phantom experiments were carried out in which a brachytherapy needle was inserted into a two-layer non-homogeneous phantom mimicking a prostate and its surrounding tissue. Experimental results show good agreement with the model obtained. In particular, the parameters of a three-parameter force model were identified for each layer of the phantom to fit the measured force to the simulated one. Also, the Young's modulus of each layer was identified to match the measured and simulated nodal axial displacements. This is the first report of the use of ultrasound radiofrequency data to characterize tissue motion during needle insertion. As the method is non-invasive and does not involve ionizing radiation, its application in patient studies is feasible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".