Target Motion Tracking in MRI-guided Transrectal Robotic Prostate Biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: MRI-guided prostate needle biopsy requires compensation for organ motion between target planning and needle placement. Two questions are studied and answered in this paper: 1) is rigid registration sufficient in tracking the targets with an error smaller than the clinically significant size of prostate cancer and 2) what is the effect of the number of intraoperative slices on registration accuracy and speed? METHODS: we propose multislice-to-volume registration algorithms for tracking the biopsy targets within the prostate. Three orthogonal plus additional transverse intraoperative slices are acquired in the approximate center of the prostate and registered with a high-resolution target planning volume. Both rigid and deformable scenarios were implemented. Both simulated and clinical MRI-guided robotic prostate biopsy data were used to assess tracking accuracy. RESULTS: average registration errors in clinical patient data were 2.6 mm for the rigid algorithm and 2.1 mm for the deformable algorithm. CONCLUSION: rigid tracking appears to be promising. Three tracking slices yield significantly high registration speed with an affordable error.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".