MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044923800 · doi:10.1117/12.878568

Automatic fiducial localization in ultrasound images for a thermal ablation validation platform

2011· article· en· W2044923800 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFlow Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsFiducial markerComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceAblationUltrasoundThermal ablationRadiologyEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Development of ultrasound-based tumor ablation monitoring systems requires extensive validation. Validation is based on the comparison of ablated regions, computed from ultrasound images, to the ground truth region observed on histopathology images. Registration of ultrasound and histopathology images can be efficiently implemented by localizing fiducial lines embedded in the test phantom. Manual fiducial localization is time consuming and may be inaccurate. Current automatic localization algorithms were designed for use on images containing easily detectable fiducials in clear water, while the images produced by the ablation monitoring platform contain fiducials and ablated tissue embedded in tissue-mimicking gel. Our goal was to develop an automatic fiducial localization algorithm for the ablation monitoring platform. METHOD: A previously existing algorithm for detecting fishing line in water for ultrasound probe calibration, created by Chen et al., was tested on ultrasound images of an ablation phantom. Fiducial and line point detection parameters were determined by running the algorithm multiple times with different parameter sets and searching for the set that results in the best detection success rate. The fiducial intensity scoring method was modified to use intensities from an unaltered image; this greatly reduced the number of incorrectly identified fiducials. Line finding was modified to suit the ablation phantom geometry. RESULTS: The new algorithm was tested by comparing the automatic localization results to manually identified fiducial positions. Using the optimized parameters, it was found to have a 94.1 % success rate on the tested images. Fiducial localization error was defined as the difference between the manually segmented positions and the positions found by the algorithm. Fiducial localization error was - 0.04±0.18mm along the x-axis, and -0.09±0.14mm along the y-axis. CONCLUSION: We have developed an automatic algorithm that detects line fiducials at a high success rate in complex phantoms containing a tissue sample embedded in tissue-mimicking gel.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.198 · 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