MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999063347 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/53/19/003

Subject-specific models for image-guided cardiac surgery

2008· article· en· W1999063347 on OpenAlexafffund
Marcin Wierzbicki, John Moore, Maria Drangova, Terry M. Peters

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityRobarts Clinical TrialsGrand River Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceVisualizationSurgical planningComputer visionImage qualitySubject (documents)Image-guided surgeryNoise (video)Image (mathematics)MedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three-dimensional visualization for planning and guidance is still not routinely available for minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS). This can be addressed by providing the surgeon with subject-specific geometric models derived from 3D preoperative images for planning of port locations or to rehearse the procedure. For guidance purposes, these models can also be registered to the subject using intraoperative images. In this paper, we present a method for extracting subject-specific heart geometry from preoperative MR images. The main obstacle we face is the low quality of clinical data in terms of resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, and presence of artefacts. Instead of using these images directly, we approach the problem in three steps: (1) generate a high quality template model, (2) register the template with the preoperative data, and (3) animate the result over the cardiac cycle. Validation of this approach showed that dynamic subject-specific models can be generated with a mean error of 3.6+/-1.1 mm from low resolution target images (6 mm slices). Thus, the models are sufficiently accurate for MICS training and procedure planning. In terms of guidance, we also demonstrate how the resulting models may be adapted to the operating room using intraoperative ultrasound imaging.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.332
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.069 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207