Evaluation of three‐dimensional finite element‐based deformable registration of pre‐ and intraoperative prostate imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this report we evaluate an image registration technique that can improve the information content of intraoperative image data by deformable matching of preoperative images. In this study, pretreatment 1.5 tesla (T) magnetic resonance (MR) images of the prostate are registered with 0.5 T intraoperative images. The method involves rigid and nonrigid registration using biomechanical finite element modeling. Preoperative 1.5 T MR imaging is conducted with the patient supine, using an endorectal coil, while intraoperatively, the patient is in the lithotomy position with a rectal obturator in place. We have previously observed that these changes in patient position and rectal filling produce a shape change in the prostate. The registration of 1.5 T preoperative images depicting the prostate substructure [namely central gland (CG) and peripheral zone (PZ)] to 0.5 T intraoperative MR images using this method can facilitate the segmentation of the substructure of the gland for radiation treatment planning. After creating and validating a dataset of manually segmented glands from images obtained in ten sequential MR-guided brachytherapy cases, we conducted a set of experiments to assess our hypothesis that the proposed registration system can significantly improve the quality of matching of the total gland (TG), CG, and PZ. The results showed that the method statistically-significantly improves the quality of match (compared to rigid registration), raising the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) from prematched coefficients of 0.81, 0.78, and 0.59 for TG, CG, and PZ, respectively, to 0.94, 0.86, and 0.76. A point-based measure of registration agreement was also improved by the deformable registration. CG and PZ volumes are not changed by the registration, indicating that the method maintains the biomechanical topology of the prostate. Although this strategy was tested for MRI-guided brachytherapy, the preliminary results from these experiments suggest that it may be applied to other settings such as transrectal ultrasound-guided therapy, where the integration of preoperative MRI may have a significant impact upon treatment planning and guidance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".