MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2016964959 · doi:10.1117/12.2081488

Live ultrasound volume reconstruction using scout scanning

2015· article· en· W2016964959 on OpenAlexaff
Amélie Meyer, András Lassó, Tamás Ungi, Gábor Fichtinger

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsComputer scienceVolume (thermodynamics)Computer visionWorkflowArtificial intelligenceIterative reconstructionVisualization3d scanning3D reconstructionImage resolutionComputer graphics (images)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Ultrasound-guided interventions often necessitate scanning of deep-seated anatomical structures that may be hard to visualize. Visualization can be improved using reconstructed 3D ultrasound volumes. High-resolution 3D reconstruction of a large area during clinical interventions is challenging if the region of interest is unknown. We propose a two-stage scanning method allowing the user to perform quick low-resolution scouting followed by high-resolution live volume reconstruction. METHODS: Scout scanning is accomplished by stacking 2D tracked ultrasound images into a low-resolution volume. Then, within a region of interest defined in the scout scan, live volume reconstruction can be performed by continuous scanning until sufficient image density is achieved. We implemented the workflow as a module of the open-source 3D Slicer application, within the SlicerIGT extension and building on the PLUS toolkit. RESULTS: Scout scanning is performed in a few seconds using 3 mm spacing to allow region of interest definition. Live reconstruction parameters are set to provide good image quality (0.5 mm spacing, hole filling enabled) and feedback is given during live scanning by regularly updated display of the reconstructed volume. DISCUSSION: Use of scout scanning may allow the physician to identify anatomical structures. Subsequent live volume reconstruction in a region of interest may assist in procedures such as targeting needle interventions or estimating brain shift during surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicAnatomy and Medical Technology→French-language works237,207→