MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125401397 · doi:10.1097/rli.0b013e31827b9f86

Augmented Reality Visualization Using Image Overlay Technology for MR-Guided Interventions

2013· article· en· W2125401397 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInvestigative Radiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsBiopsyMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyDrillMedicineOverlayVisualizationInterventional magnetic resonance imagingPercutaneousComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to prospectively test the hypothesis that image overlay technology facilitates accurate navigation for magnetic resonance (MR)-guided osseous biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prototype augmented reality image overlay system was used in conjunction with a clinical 1.5-T MR imaging system. Osseous biopsy of a total of 16 lesions was planned in 4 human cadavers with osseous metastases. A loadable module of 3D Slicer open-source medical image analysis and visualization software was developed and used for display of MR images, lesion identification, planning of virtual biopsy paths, and navigation of drill placement. The osseous drill biopsy was performed by maneuvering the drill along the displayed MR image containing the virtual biopsy path into the target. The drill placement and the final drill position were monitored by intermittent MR imaging. Outcome variables included successful drill placement, number of intermittent MR imaging control steps, target error, number of performed passes and tissue sampling, time requirements, and pathological analysis of the obtained osseous core specimens including adequacy of specimens, presence of tumor cells, and degree of necrosis. RESULTS: A total of 16 osseous lesions were sampled with percutaneous osseous drill biopsy. Eight lesions were located in the osseous pelvis (8/16, 50%) and 8 (8/16, 50%) lesions were located in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Lesion size was 2.2 cm (1.1-3.5 cm). Four (2-8) MR imaging control steps were required. MR imaging demonstrated successful drill placement inside 16 of the 16 target lesions (100%). One needle pass was sufficient for accurate targeting of all lesions. One tissue sample was obtained in 8 of the 16 lesions (50%); 2, in 6 of the 16 lesions (38%); and 3, in 2 of the 16 lesions (12%). The target error was 4.3 mm (0.8-6.8 mm). Length of time required for biopsy of a single lesion was 38 minutes (20-55 minutes). Specimens of 15 of the 16 lesions (94%) were sufficient for pathological evaluation. Of those 15 diagnostic specimens, 14 (93%) contained neoplastic cells, whereas 1 (7%) specimen demonstrated bone marrow without evidence of neoplastic cells. Of those 14 diagnostic specimens, 11 (79%) were diagnostic for carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, which was concordant with the primary neoplasm, whereas, in 3 of the 14 diagnostic specimens (21%), the neoplastic cells were indeterminate. CONCLUSIONS: Image overlay technology provided accurate navigation for the MR-guided biopsy of osseous lesions of the spine and the pelvis in human cadavers at 1.5 T. The high technical and diagnostic yield supports further evaluation with clinical trials.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.272 · 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