MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155223126 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2008.4649995

Deformable registration for intra-operative cone-beam CT guidance of head and neck surgery

2008· article· en· W2155223126 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Nithiananthan, Kristy K. Brock, Jonathan C. Irish, Jeffrey H. Siewerdsen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteUniversity Health Network
KeywordsImage registrationCadaveric spasmComputer visionCone beam ctArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCone beam computed tomographyHead and neckImage-guided surgeryImage resolutionMedicineComputed tomographyImage (mathematics)RadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The computational and geometric performance of Demons deformable registration techniques were investigated in the application of cone-beam CT (CBCT) for intra-operative guidance of head and neck surgery. A prototype C-arm providing CBCT images of sub-mm spatial resolution and soft-tissue contrast was used to acquire images of a cadaveric head before and after surgical intervention. Four deformable registration methods were investigated both in terms of their convergence behavior (time and number of iterations required) and registration accuracy (correlation between deformed and target images and the corresponding target registration error, TRE). Rigid registration alone exhibited a TRE of (2.6 +/- 1.0) mm, compared to a TRE of (0.8 +/- 0.3) mm obtained with deformable registration. A fast symmetric demons implementation was identified as the most suitable for intra-operative use in terms of speed, image quality, and accuracy. Increasing the spatial resolution of CBCT images was found to increase registration accuracy at the cost of computational expense. Intra-operative CBCT combined with deformable registration offers to overcome conventional limitations of guidance by preoperative images alone and presents an accurate method of integrating imaging and planning data in a manner that properly reflects changes in the intra-operative state.

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)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207