MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036196032 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2013.2251469

Model-based registration of ex vivo and in vivo MRI of the prostate using elastography

2013· article· en· W2036196032 on OpenAlexafffund
Guy Nir, Ramin S. Sahebjavaher, Piotr Kozłowski, Silvia D. Chang, Ralph Sinkus, S. Larry Goldenberg, Septimiu E. Salcudean

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEx vivoMagnetic resonance elastographyMagnetic resonance imagingElastographyIn vivoProstateImage registrationBiomedical engineeringProstate cancerComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligenceRadiologyUltrasoundCancerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Registration of histopathology to in vivo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate is an important task that can be used to optimize in vivo imaging for cancer detection. Such registration is challenging due to the change in volume and deformation of the prostate during excision and fixation. One approach towards this problem involves the use of an ex vivo MRI of the excised prostate specimen, followed by in vivo to ex vivo MRI registration of the prostate. We propose a novel registration method that uses a patient-specific biomechanical model acquired using magnetic resonance elastography to deform the in vivo volume and match it to the surface of the ex vivo specimen. The forces that drive the deformations are derived from a region-based energy, with the elastic potential used for regularization. The incorporation of elastography data into the registration framework allows inhomogeneous elasticity to be assigned to the in vivo volume. We show that such inhomogeneity improves the registration results by providing a physical regularization of the deformation map. The method is demonstrated and evaluated on six clinical cases.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207