MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047486755 · doi:10.1117/12.813776

Group-wise registration of ultrasound to CT images of human vertebrae

2009· article· en· W2047486755 on OpenAlexaff
Sean Gill, Parvin Mousavi, Gábor Fichtinger, David R. Pichora, Purang Abolmaesumi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolume (thermodynamics)Computer scienceImaging phantomImage registrationArtificial intelligenceComputer visionGradient descentNuclear medicineMedicinePhysicsImage (mathematics)Artificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic registration of ultrasound (US) to computed tomography (CT) datasets is a challenge of considerable interest, particularly in orthopaedic and percutaneous interventions. We propose an algorithm for group-wise volume-to-volume registration of US to CT images of the lumbar spine. Each vertebra in CT is treated as a sub-volume and transformed individually. The sub-volumes are then reconstructed into a single volume. The algorithm dynamically combines simulated US reflections from the vertebrae surfaces and surrounding soft tissue in the reconstructed CT, with scaled CT data to simulate US images of the spine anatomy. The simulated US data is used to register preoperative CT data to intra-operative US images. Covariance Matrix Adaption - Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES) is utilized as the optimization strategy. The registration is tested using a phantom of the lumbar spine (L3-L5). Initial misalignments of up to 8 mm were registered with a mean target registration error of 1.87±0.73 mm for L3, 2.79±0.93 mm for L4, 1.72±0.70 mm for L5, and 2.08±0.55 mm across the entire volume. To select an appropriate optimization strategy, we performed a volume-to- volume registration of US to CT of the lumbar spine, allowing no relative motion between vertebrae. We compare the results of this registration using three optimization strategies: simplex, gradient descent and CMA-ES. CMA-ES was found to converge slower than gradient descent and simplex, but was more robust for rigid volume-to-volume registration for initial misalignments up to 20 mm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207