MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2057136561 · doi:10.1117/12.709483

Development of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system

2007· article· en· W2057136561 on OpenAlexafffund
Derek W. Cool, Shi Sherebrin, Jonathan I. Izawa, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchProstate Cancer Foundation
KeywordsBiopsy3D ultrasoundProstate cancerProstateProstate biopsyMedicineRadiologyUltrasoundCancerMedical physicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biopsy of the prostate using ultrasound guidance is the clinical gold standard for diagnosis of prostate adenocarinoma. However, because early stage tumors are rarely visible under US, the procedure carries high false-negative rates and often patients require multiple biopsies before cancer is detected. To improve cancer detection, it is imperative that throughout the biopsy procedure, physicians know where they are within the prostate and where they have sampled during prior biopsies. The current biopsy procedure is limited to using only 2D ultrasound images to find and record target biopsy core sample sites. This information leaves ambiguity as the physician tries to interpret the 2D information and apply it to their 3D workspace. We have developed a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system that provides 3D intra-biopsy information to physicians for needle guidance and biopsy location recording. The system is designed to conform to the workflow of the current prostate biopsy procedure, making it easier for clinical integration. In this paper, we describe the system design and validate its accuracy by performing an in vitro biopsy procedure on US/CT multi-modal patient-specific prostate phantoms. A clinical sextant biopsy was performed by a urologist on the phantoms and the 3D models of the prostates were generated with volume errors less than 4% and mean boundary errors of less than 1 mm. Using the 3D biopsy system, needles were guided to within 1.36 ± 0.83 mm of 3D targets and the position of the biopsy sites were accurately localized to 1.06 ± 0.89 mm for the two prostates.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→