Evaluation of intersession 3D‐TRUS to 3D‐TRUS image registration for repeat prostate biopsies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: 3D-TRUS-guided prostate biopsy permits a 3D record of biopsy cores, supporting the planning of targets to resample or avoid during repeat biopsy sessions. Image registration is required in order to map biopsy targets planned on a previous session's 3D-TRUS image into the context of the current session. The authors evaluated the performance of surface- and intensity-based rigid and nonrigid registration algorithms for this task using a clinically motivated success criterion of a maximum 2.5 mm target registration error (TRE). METHODS: The authors collected two 3D-TRUS images for each of 13 patients, where each image was collected in a separate biopsy session, and the sessions were 1 week apart. The authors tested the iterative closest point and thin-plate spline surface-based registration methods, and the block matching and B-spline intensity-based methods. Manually marked intrinsic fiducials (calcifications) were used to calculate a TRE for each of the tested methods. In addition, error ellipsoids, anisotropy, and variability due to image segmentation were analyzed. All analysis was performed separately for the peripheral zone since this area harbors up to 80% of all prostate cancer. RESULTS: Only the intensity-based nonrigid registration method met the success criterion for both the whole gland and the peripheral zone. Segmentation was a substantial contributor to registration error variability for the surface-based methods, and the surface-based methods resulted in greater error volumes and anisotropy. CONCLUSIONS: Intensity-based rigid registration is clinically sufficient to register regions outside the peripheral zone, but nonrigid registration is required in order to register the peripheral zone with clinically needed accuracy. The clinical advantage of using nonrigid registration is questionable since the difference between the RMS TREs for rigid and nonrigid intensity-based registration could be considered to be small (0.3 mm) and is statistically significant. If the added clinical value in performing a nonrigid registration is insufficient given the additional time required for this computation, rigid registration alone may be suitable.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".