MR Thermometry Analysis of Sonication Accuracy and Safety Margin of Volumetric MR Imaging–guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation of Symptomatic Uterine Fibroids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of the size and location of the ablation zone produced by volumetric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of uterine fibroids on the basis of MR thermometric analysis and to assess the effects of a feedback control technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and written informed consent was obtained. Thirty-three women with 38 uterine fibroids were treated with an MR imaging-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound system capable of volumetric feedback ablation. Size (diameter times length) and location (three-dimensional displacements) of each ablation zone induced by 527 sonications (with [n=471] and without [n=56] feedback) were analyzed according to the thermal dose obtained with MR thermometry. Prospectively defined acceptance ranges of targeting accuracy were ±5 mm in left-right (LR) and craniocaudal (CC) directions and ±12 mm in anteroposterior (AP) direction. Effects of feedback control in 8- and 12-mm treatment cells were evaluated by using a mixed model with repeated observations within patients. RESULTS: Overall mean sizes of ablation zones produced by 4-, 8-, 12-, and 16-mm treatment cells (with and without feedback) were 4.6 mm±1.4 (standard deviation)×4.4 mm±4.8 (n=13), 8.9 mm±1.9×20.2 mm±6.5 (n=248), 13.0 mm±1.2×29.1 mm±5.6 (n=234), and 18.1 mm±1.4×38.2 mm±7.6 (n=32), respectively. Targeting accuracy values (displacements in absolute values) were 0.9 mm±0.7, 1.2 mm±0.9, and 2.8 mm±2.2 in LR, CC, and AP directions, respectively. Of 527 sonications, 99.8% (526 of 527) were within acceptance ranges. Feedback control had no statistically significant effect on targeting accuracy or ablation zone size. However, variations in ablation zone size were smaller in the feedback control group. CONCLUSION: Sonication accuracy of volumetric MR imaging-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of uterine fibroids appears clinically acceptable and may be further improved by feedback control to produce more consistent ablation zones.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".