MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021736433 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/50/12/010

A feasibility study to investigate the use of thin-plate splines to account for prostate deformation

2005· article· en· W2021736433 on OpenAlexafffund
Niranjan Venugopal, Boyd McCurdy, A. Hnatov, Arbind Dubey

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
FundersCancerCare Manitoba Foundation
KeywordsProstateImage warpingMagnetic resonance imagingProstate cancerComputer scienceElectromagnetic coilRadiation treatment planningData setNuclear medicineRadiation therapyArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmComputer visionMedicineRadiologyCancerPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image registration is an important step in the radiotherapy treatment planning process. It provides a method of fusing different types of diagnostic imaging information. One such application is to combine magnetic resonance spectroscopic images (MRSI) of the prostate with anatomical MRI and/or computed tomography images that are routinely used in the radiation treatment planning of prostate cancer. MRSI provides in vivo information related to the underlying metabolic activity of tissues, and can be related to the presence of cancer. However, the inflated endorectal coil required during MRS imaging poses a potential problem by deforming the prostate when it is filled with approximately 100 cm3 of air during image acquisition. This pushes the prostate superiorly/anteriorly, deforming the prostate and consequently the spectroscopic imaging data in a nonlinear manner. In this application, the coil-deformed MRS images are warped back to a non-deformed state, using a single data set. A nonlinear warping algorithm is presented to achieve this. Results indicate that the algorithm attains an accuracy of 97% (4 cm3 difference) when reproducing the total prostate volume compared to a Radiation Oncologist defined prostate volume. This difference is slightly smaller than the measured intra-operator variance of +/-1.5 cm3 (deflated coil) and the measured algorithm variance of +/-1.0 cm3. Additionally, intraprostatic nodules were used to assess the accuracy of the warping algorithm in regions inside the prostate. While choosing anatomical tie points along the external prostate surface, analysis of the nodules revealed the algorithm accuracy reduced to 63-93%.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

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 head0.349
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.097 · 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

Citations32
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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