Post‐implant computed tomography–magnetic resonance prostate image registration using feature line parallelization and normalized mutual information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-implant dosimetry for permanent prostate brachytherapy is typically performed using computed tomography (CT) images, for which the clear visualization of soft tissue structures is problematic. Registration of CT and magnetic resonance (MR) image volumes can improve the definition of all structures of interest (soft tissues, bones, and seeds) in the joint image set. In the present paper, we describe a novel two-stage rigid-body registration algorithm that consists of (1) parallelization of straight lines fit to image features running primarily in the superior-inferior (Z) direction, followed by (2) normalized mutual information registration. The first stage serves to fix rotation angles about the anterior-posterior (Y) and left-right (X) directions, and the second stage determines the remaining Z-axis rotation angle and the X, Y, Z translation values. The new algorithm was applied to CT and 1.5T MR (T2-weighted and balanced fast-field echo sequences) axial image sets for three patients acquired four weeks after prostate brachytherapy using 125I seeds. Image features used for the stage 1 parallelization were seed trains in CT and needle tracks and seed voids in MR. Simulated datasets were also created to further investigate algorithm performance. Clinical image volumes were successfully registered using the two-stage approach to within a root-mean-squares (RMS) distance of <1.5 mm, provided that some pubic bone and anterior rectum were included in the registration volume of interest and that no motion artifact was apparent. This level of accuracy is comparable to that obtained for the same clinical datasets using the Procrustes algorithm. Unlike Procrustes, the new algorithm can be almost fully automated, and hence we conclude that its further development for application in post-implant dosimetry is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".