Prostate implant reconstruction from C-arm images with motion-compensated tomosynthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Accurate localization of prostate implants from several C-arm images is necessary for ultrasound-fluoroscopy fusion and intraoperative dosimetry. The authors propose a computational motion compensation method for tomosynthesis-based reconstruction that enables 3D localization of prostate implants from C-arm images despite C-arm oscillation and sagging. METHODS: Five C-arm images are captured by rotating the C-arm around its primary axis, while measuring its rotation angle using a protractor or the C-arm joint encoder. The C-arm images are processed to obtain binary seed-only images from which a volume of interest is reconstructed. The motion compensation algorithm, iteratively, compensates for 2D translational motion of the C-arm by maximizing the number of voxels that project on a seed projection in all of the images. This obviates the need for C-arm full pose tracking traditionally implemented using radio-opaque fiducials or external trackers. The proposed reconstruction method is tested in simulations, in a phantom study and on ten patient data sets. RESULTS: In a phantom implanted with 136 dummy seeds, the seed detection rate was 100% with a localization error of 0.86 ± 0.44 mm (Mean ± STD) compared to CT. For patient data sets, a detection rate of 99.5% was achieved in approximately 1 min per patient. The reconstruction results for patient data sets were compared against an available matching-based reconstruction method and showed relative localization difference of 0.5 ± 0.4 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The motion compensation method can successfully compensate for large C-arm motion without using radio-opaque fiducial or external trackers. Considering the efficacy of the algorithm, its successful reconstruction rate and low computational burden, the algorithm is feasible for clinical use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".