MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171540388 · doi:10.1118/1.3360440

Temporal-based needle segmentation algorithm for transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy procedures

2010· article· en· W2171540388 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchProstate Cancer Foundation
KeywordsBiopsyProstate biopsySegmentationUltrasoundRadiologyMedicineHough transform3D ultrasoundImage segmentationProstateComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Automatic identification of the biopsy-core tissue location during a prostate biopsy procedure would provide verification that targets were adequately sampled and would allow for appropriate intraprocedure biopsy target modification. Localization of the biopsy core requires accurate segmentation of the biopsy needle and needle tip from transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy images. A temporal-based TRUS needle segmentation algorithm was developed specifically for the prostate biopsy procedure to automatically identify the TRUS image containing the biopsy needle from a collection of 2D TRUS images and to segment the biopsy-core location from the 2D TRUS image. METHODS: The temporal-based segmentation algorithm performs a temporal analysis on a series of biopsy TRUS images collected throughout needle insertion and withdrawal. Following the identification of points of needle insertion and retraction, the needle axis is segmented using a Hough transform-based algorithm, which is followed by a temporospectral TRUS analysis to identify the biopsy-needle tip. Validation of the temporal-based algorithm is performed on 108 TRUS biopsy sequences collected from the procedures of ten patients. The success of the temporal search to identify the proper images was manually assessed, while the accuracies of the needle-axis and needle-tip segmentations were quantitatively compared to implementations of two other needle segmentation algorithms within the literature. RESULTS: The needle segmentation algorithm demonstrated a >99% accuracy in identifying the TRUS image at the moment of needle insertion from the collection of real-time TRUS images throughout the insertion and withdrawal of the biopsy needle. The segmented biopsy-needle axes were accurate to within 2.3 +/- 2.0 degrees and 0.48 +/- 0.42 mm of the gold standard. Identification of the needle tip to within half of the biopsy-core length (<10 mm) was 95% successful with a mean error of 2.4 +/- 4.0 mm. Needle-tip detection using the temporal-based algorithm was significantly more accurate (p < 0.001) than the other two algorithms tested, while the segmentation of the needle axis was not significantly different between the three algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: The temporal-based needle segmentation algorithm accurately segments the location of the biopsy core from 2D TRUS images of clinical prostate biopsy procedures. The results for needle-tip localization demonstrated that the temporal-based algorithm is significantly more accurate than implementations of some existing needle segmentation algorithms within the literature.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · 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