MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149297660 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2010.2058110

CT-Enhanced Ultrasound Image of a Totally Deflated Lung for Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Tumor Ablative Procedures

2010· article· en· W2149297660 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Sadeghi‐Naini, Rajni V. Patel, Abbas Samani

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage qualityAblative caseLungComputer visionComputer scienceRadiologyArtificial intelligenceMedicineImage (mathematics)Radiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A technique is proposed to enhance the quality of intraoperative ultrasound (US) images of a deflated lung undergoing minimally invasive tumor ablative procedure. Since US images are very sensitive to residual air remaining in deflated lung, lung US images have very poor quality, and hence, are not appropriate for image-guided procedures. Therefore, a reliable and high-quality intraoperative image of the lung is a paramount necessity for tumor localization and fusion with real-time navigation data during such procedures. The proposed technique employs information of a deflated lung's computed tomography (CT) image constructed preoperatively in order to enhance those of the intraoperative US images. The enhancement is performed via two concurrent registration processes. The output is an enhanced US image of the deflated lung oriented and positioned accurately within its preoperative CT counterpart. Ex vivo experiments were conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed technique. The obtained results indicate that very considerable improvement was achieved in the quality of the input intraoperative US images of the deflated lung.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207