MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013627343 · doi:10.1118/1.4773873

2D-3D rigid registration to compensate for prostate motion during 3D TRUS-guided biopsy

2013· article· en· W2013627343 on OpenAlexafffund
Tharindu De Silva, Aaron Fenster, Derek W. Cool, Lori Gardi, Cesare Romagnoli, Jagath Samarabandu, Aaron D. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversityRobarts Clinical Trials
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFiducial markerProstate biopsyImage registration3D ultrasoundComputer visionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedical imagingProstateMetric (unit)UltrasoundMedicineRadiologyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Three-dimensional (3D) transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systems have been developed to improve targeting accuracy during prostate biopsy. However, prostate motion during the procedure is a potential source of error that can cause target misalignments. The authors present an image-based registration technique to compensate for prostate motion by registering the live two-dimensional (2D) TRUS images acquired during the biopsy procedure to a preacquired 3D TRUS image. The registration must be performed both accurately and quickly in order to be useful during the clinical procedure. METHODS: The authors implemented an intensity-based 2D-3D rigid registration algorithm optimizing the normalized cross-correlation (NCC) metric using Powell's method. The 2D TRUS images acquired during the procedure prior to biopsy gun firing were registered to the baseline 3D TRUS image acquired at the beginning of the procedure. The accuracy was measured by calculating the target registration error (TRE) using manually identified fiducials within the prostate; these fiducials were used for validation only and were not provided as inputs to the registration algorithm. They also evaluated the accuracy when the registrations were performed continuously throughout the biopsy by acquiring and registering live 2D TRUS images every second. This measured the improvement in accuracy resulting from performing the registration, continuously compensating for motion during the procedure. To further validate the method using a more challenging data set, registrations were performed using 3D TRUS images acquired by intentionally exerting different levels of ultrasound probe pressures in order to measure the performance of our algorithm when the prostate tissue was intentionally deformed. In this data set, biopsy scenarios were simulated by extracting 2D frames from the 3D TRUS images and registering them to the baseline 3D image. A graphics processing unit (GPU)-based implementation was used to improve the registration speed. They also studied the correlation between NCC and TREs. RESULTS: The root-mean-square (RMS) TRE of registrations performed prior to biopsy gun firing was found to be 1.87 ± 0.81 mm. This was an improvement over 4.75 ± 2.62 mm before registration. When the registrations were performed every second during the biopsy, the RMS TRE was reduced to 1.63 ± 0.51 mm. For 3D data sets acquired under different probe pressures, the RMS TRE was found to be 3.18 ± 1.6 mm. This was an improvement from 6.89 ± 4.1 mm before registration. With the GPU based implementation, the registrations were performed with a mean time of 1.1 s. The TRE showed a weak correlation with the similarity metric. However, the authors measured a generally convex shape of the metric around the ground truth, which may explain the rapid convergence of their algorithm to accurate results. CONCLUSIONS: Registration to compensate for prostate motion during 3D TRUS-guided biopsy can be performed with a measured accuracy of less than 2 mm and a speed of 1.1 s, which is an important step toward improving the targeting accuracy of a 3D TRUS-guided biopsy system.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations57
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207