MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066993558 · doi:10.1118/1.2123350

2D‐3D registration of coronary angiograms for cardiac procedure planning and guidance

2005· article· en· W2066993558 on OpenAlexafffund
Guy‐Anne Turgeon, Glen Lehmann, G Guiraudon, Maria Drangova, David W. Holdsworth, Terry M. Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOffset (computer science)Image registrationArtificial intelligenceComputer visionPatient registrationCardiac cycleMedicineComputer scienceNuclear medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a completely automated 2D-3D registration technique that accurately maps a patient-specific heart model, created from preoperative images, to the patient's orientation in the operating room. This mapping is based on the registration of preoperatively acquired 3D vascular data with intraoperatively acquired angiograms. Registration using both single and dual-plane angiograms is explored using simulated but realistic datasets that were created from clinical images. Heart deformations and cardiac phase mismatches are taken into account in our validation using a digital 4D human heart model. In an ideal situation where the pre- and intraoperative images were acquired at identical time points within the cardiac cycle, the single-plane and the dual-plane registrations resulted in 3D root-mean-square (rms) errors of 1.60 +/- 0.21 and 0.53 +/- 0.08 mm, respectively. When a 10% timing offset was added between the pre- and the intraoperative acquisitions, the single-plane registration approach resulted in inaccurate registrations in the out-of-plane axis, whereas the dual-plane registration exhibited a 98% success rate with a 3D rms error of 1.33 +/- 0.28 mm. When all potential sources of error were included, namely, the anatomical background, timing offset, and typical errors in the vascular tree reconstruction, the dual-plane registration performed at 94% with an accuracy of 2.19 +/- 0.77 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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations83
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207