MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160353853 · doi:10.1148/radiol.12102294

Prostate: Registration of Digital Histopathologic Images to in Vivo MR Images Acquired by Using Endorectal Receive Coil

2012· article· en· W2160353853 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aaron D. Ward, Cathie Crukley, Charles A. McKenzie, Jacques Montreuil, Eli Gibson, Cesare Romagnoli, José A. Gómez, Madeleine Moussa, Joseph L. Chin, Glenn Bauman, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiducial markerMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingImage registrationProstateNuclear medicineRadiologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a technique for the registration of in vivo prostate magnetic resonance (MR) images to digital histopathologic images by using image-guided specimen slicing based on strand-shaped fiducial markers relating specimen imaging to histopathologic examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board (the University of Western Ontario Health Sciences Research Ethics Board, London, Ontario, Canada), and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. This work proposed and evaluated a technique utilizing developed fiducial markers and real-time three-dimensional visualization in support of image guidance for ex vivo prostate specimen slicing parallel to the MR imaging planes prior to digitization, simplifying the registration process. Means, standard deviations, root-mean-square errors, and 95% confidence intervals are reported for all evaluated measurements. RESULTS: The slicing error was within the 2.2 mm thickness of the diagnostic-quality MR imaging sections, with a tissue block thickness standard deviation of 0.2 mm. Rigid registration provided negligible postregistration overlap of the smallest clinically important tumors (0.2 cm(3)) at histologic examination and MR imaging, whereas the tested nonrigid registration method yielded a mean target registration error of 1.1 mm and provided useful coregistration of such tumors. CONCLUSION: This method for the registration of prostate digital histopathologic images to in vivo MR images acquired by using an endorectal receive coil was sufficiently accurate for coregistering the smallest clinically important lesions with 95% confidence.

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 score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations77
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207