Treatment planning for prostate focal laser ablation in the face of needle placement uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the effect of needle placement uncertainty on the expected probability of achieving complete focal target destruction in focal laser ablation (FLA) of prostate cancer. METHODS: Using a simplified model of prostate cancer focal target, and focal laser ablation region shapes, Monte Carlo simulations of needle placement error were performed to estimate the probability of completely ablating a region of target tissue. RESULTS: Graphs of the probability of complete focal target ablation are presented over clinically relevant ranges of focal target sizes and shapes, ablation region sizes, and levels of needle placement uncertainty. In addition, a table is provided for estimating the maximum target size that is treatable. The results predict that targets whose length is at least 5 mm smaller than the diameter of each ablation region can be confidently ablated using, at most, four laser fibers if the standard deviation in each component of needle placement error is less than 3 mm. However, targets larger than this (i.e., near to or exceeding the diameter of each ablation region) require more careful planning. This process is facilitated by using the table provided. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of completely ablating a focal target using FLA is sensitive to the level of needle placement uncertainty, especially as the target length approaches and becomes greater than the diameter of ablated tissue that each individual laser fiber can achieve. The results of this work can be used to help determine individual patient eligibility for prostate FLA, to guide the planning of prostate FLA, and to quantify the clinical benefit of using advanced systems for accurate needle delivery for this treatment modality.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".