MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134012543 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2014.2375207

Three-Dimensional Nonrigid MR-TRUS Registration Using Dual Optimization

2014· article· en· W2134012543 on OpenAlexafffund
Yue Sun, Jing Yuan, Wu Qiu, Martin Rajchl, Cesare Romagnoli, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImage registrationSimilarity (geometry)Fiducial markerArtificial intelligenceMagnetic resonance imagingUltrasoundProstate biopsyComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)ProstateComputer visionMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Nuclear medicineMedicineImage (mathematics)Radiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we proposed an efficient nonrigid magnetic resonance (MR) to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) deformable registration method in order to improve the accuracy of targeting suspicious regions during a three dimensional (3-D) TRUS guided prostate biopsy. The proposed deformable registration approach employs the multi-channel modality independent neighborhood descriptor (MIND) as the local similarity feature across the two modalities of MR and TRUS, and a novel and efficient duality-based convex optimization-based algorithmic scheme was introduced to extract the deformations and align the two MIND descriptors. The registration accuracy was evaluated using 20 patient images by calculating the TRE using manually identified corresponding intrinsic fiducials in the whole gland and peripheral zone. Additional performance metrics [Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean absolute surface distance (MAD), and maximum absolute surface distance (MAXD)] were also calculated by comparing the MR and TRUS manually segmented prostate surfaces in the registered images. Experimental results showed that the proposed method yielded an overall median TRE of 1.76 mm. The results obtained in terms of DSC showed an average of 80.8±7.8% for the apex of the prostate, 92.0±3.4% for the mid-gland, 81.7±6.4% for the base and 85.7±4.7% for the whole gland. The surface distance calculations showed an overall average of 1.84±0.52 mm for MAD and 6.90±2.07 mm for MAXD.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations37
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207