MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2092794669 · doi:10.1118/1.2244681

Sci‐Fri PM Imaging‐06: Registered Digital Stereotactic Mammography and 3D‐Ultrasound for Breast Biopsy Guidance

2006· article· en· W2092794669 on OpenAlexaff
MS Irwin, Lori Gardi, D.B. Downey, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMammographyMedicineUltrasoundBreast imagingMedical imagingBiopsyRadiologyDigital mammographyModalitiesBreast biopsyMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineMedical physicsBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large core needle biopsy is a common procedure used to obtain histological samples when a suspicious lesion is detected in diagnostic breast images. The procedure is typically performed using image guidance, with ultrasound (US) and stereotactic mammography (SM) being the most common modalities used. Each of these imaging methods, however, has limitations that impact their clinical utility. For example, some breast structures are not visible in ultrasound. Mammography provides better visualization of features such as microcalcifications, but does not support real‐time imaging. A prototype device combining the advantages of digital SM and 3D‐US with computer‐aided needle guidance was developed at our centre. The objective of this work was to determine the position of biopsy targets with an error of less than 0.5 mm. A methodology was first developed to calibrate the SM system. Then, by imaging a set of the same physical points identifiable in both SM and 3DUS images, the two modalities were registered. In both cases, the target registration error (TRE) was calculated to quantify the error in determining the position of points imaged within the breast. For locating points in the SM images alone, the TRE was found to be 0.35 mm. The TRE found in registering the two modalities was 0.37 mm. The TRE value is clinically relevant as it indicates the position error associated with selecting an arbitrary image point for biopsy. When compared to the typical breast biopsy needle diameter of 2.1 mm, the calculated TRE from the two imaging modalities was sufficiently small.

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)0.002
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.009

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAI in cancer detection→French-language works237,207→