MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317689312 · doi:10.1117/12.2217079

3D prostate MR-TRUS non-rigid registration using dual optimization with volume-preserving constraint

2016· article· en· W2317689312 on OpenAlexaff
Wu Qiu, Jing Yuan, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)Volume (thermodynamics)Dual (grammatical number)Computer scienceImage registrationComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsGeometryPhysicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce an efficient and novel convex optimization-based approach to the challenging non-rigid registration of 3D prostate magnetic resonance (MR) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images, which incorporates a new volume preserving constraint to essentially improve the accuracy of targeting suspicious regions during the 3D TRUS guided prostate biopsy. Especially, we propose a fast sequential convex optimization scheme to efficiently minimize the employed highly nonlinear image fidelity function using the robust multi-channel modality independent neighborhood descriptor (MIND) across the two modalities of MR and TRUS. The registration accuracy was evaluated using 10 patient images by calculating the target registration error (TRE) using manually identified corresponding intrinsic fiducials in the whole prostate gland. We also compared the MR and TRUS manually segmented prostate surfaces in the registered images in terms of the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean absolute surface distance (MAD), and maximum absolute surface distance (MAXD). Experimental results showed that the proposed method with the introduced volume-preserving prior significantly improves the registration accuracy comparing to the method without the volume-preserving constraint, by yielding an overall mean TRE of 2:0±0:7 mm, and an average DSC of 86:5±3:5%, MAD of 1:4±0:6 mm and MAXD of 6:5±3:5 mm.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207