MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164229935 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2005.853639

Real-time fusion of endoscopic views with dynamic 3-D cardiac images: a phantom study

2005· article· en· W2164229935 on OpenAlexaff
Stanislaw Szpala, Marcin Wierzbicki, G Guiraudon, Terry M. Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern UniversitySunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceImage registrationMagnetic resonance imagingImage warpingImage qualityImage fusionMedical imagingMedicineNuclear medicineRadiologyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Minimally invasive robotically assisted cardiac surgical systems currently do not routinely employ 3-D image guidance. However, preoperative magnetic resonance and computed tomography (CT) images have the potential to be used in this role, if appropriately registered with the patient anatomy and animated synchronously with the motion of the actual heart. This paper discusses the fusion of optical images of a beating heart phantom obtained from an optically tracked endoscope, with volumetric images of the phantom created from a dynamic CT dataset. High quality preoperative dynamic CT images are created by first extracting the motion parameters of the heart from the series of temporal frames, and then applying this information to animate a high-quality heart image acquired at end systole. Temporal synchronization of the endoscopic and CT model is achieved by selecting the appropriate CT image from the dynamic set, based on an electrocardiographic trigger signal. The spatial error between the optical and virtual images is 1.4 +/- 1.1 mm, while the time discrepancy is typically 50-100 ms. Index Terms-Image guidance, image warping, minimally invasive cardiac surgery, virtual endoscopy, virtual reality.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 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

Citations36
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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