MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083511353 · doi:10.1118/1.2244653

Po‐Thur Eve General‐26: Tracking intraprostatic volumes for determining non‐linear warping algorithm variability

2006· article· en· W2083511353 on OpenAlexaff
Niranjan Venugopal, Boyd McCurdy, A. Hnatov, Arbind Dubey

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage warpingProstateElectromagnetic coilMagnetic resonance imagingAlgorithmData setProstate cancerComputer scienceVolume (thermodynamics)Nuclear medicineArtificial intelligenceMedicinePhysicsRadiologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) is becoming routinely used for diagnosis and treatment planning of prostate cancer. MRSI provides physicians and physicists with information related to metabolic activity of tissues within the prostate. During the MRSI data acquisition, an endorectal radio frequency coil is utilized to boost signal strength in the localized volume, and brings about a ∼10 fold increase in the signal to noise ratio. A challenge exist is using the MRSI data collected using the endorectal coil technique. The endorectal coil, while crucially important to data acquisition, is filled with approximately with ∼100cc's of air. This pushes the prostate superiorly/anteriorly, deforming the prostate and consequently the spectroscopic imaging data in a non‐linear manner. In this application, the coil‐deformed MRS images are warped back to a non‐deformed state, using a single data set. A non‐linear warping algorithm is presented to achieve this. For this case study, physicians were able to contour both the total prostate volume, and intraprostatic nodules. While choosing anatomical tie points along the external prostate surface (needed for the non‐linear warping algorithm), analysis of the nodules revealed the algorithm accuracy ranges from 63–93%. While the algorithm accuracy itself, when reproducing the total prostate volume, achieved an accuracy of 97%.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.292
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207