MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027008320 · doi:10.4236/act.2013.23014

Minioptical Navigation System for CT-Guided Percutaneous Liver Procedures

2013· article· en· W2027008320 on OpenAlexaff
David Valenti, Louis-Martin Boucher, Giovanni Artho, Christopher von Jako, Tatiana Cabrera

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Computed Tomography · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAblationRadiologyPercutaneousNavigation systemTarget lesionCLIPSMedical physicsSurgeryArtificial intelligenceInternal medicinePercutaneous coronary interventionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To evaluate a new miniature optical navigation system for CT-guided liver interventions. Material and Methods: A two-center, prospective study was performed with four interventional radiologists. A total of 20 patients had CT-guided liver biopsy or ablation interventions utilizing the CT-Guide? navigation system (ActiViews Inc., Wakefield, MA) between July 2011 and December 2011. The navigation system consists of a self-adhesive patientsticker printed with coincident colored and radio-opaque reference markers, a miniature disposable video camera that clips on and off an interventional instrument, and software loaded on a computer to display the navigation information. The primary end point was the frequency of a satisfactory instrument position for the intended intervention. Results: The cohort consisted of 13 males and 7 females with an average age of 63.1 years (range of 38 to 80). Most of the patients, 70%, underwent CT-guided liver biopsy while the remainder had CT-guided ablation therapy. The average lesion size was 3.1 cm (range of 1.1 - 6.9 cm). All of the interventions, regardless of lesion size, met the primary end point of satisfactory instrument positioning. There were no device-related or unexpected adverse events recorded. Only one patient had a mild adverse event and it resolved without intervention. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the CT-Guide? navigation system for CT-guided liver interventions, for both biopsies and ablations. The targeting success rate for a satisfactory intervention was 100% with the 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Computed TomographySame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207