MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2424613788 · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2015.2477829

Three-Dimensional Needle Shape Estimation in TRUS-Guided Prostate Brachytherapy Using 2-D Ultrasound Images

2015· article· en· W2424613788 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Waine, Carlos Rossa, Ron S. Sloboda, Nawaid Usmani, Mahdi Tavakoli

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Object Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsImaging phantomProstate brachytherapyBrachytherapyTransverse planeSegmentationSagittal planeUltrasoundComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringImage segmentation3D ultrasoundNuclear medicineMedicineRadiologyRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose an automated method to reconstruct the three-dimensional (3-D) needle shape during needle insertion procedures using only 2-D transverse ultrasound (US) images. Using a set of transverse US images, image processing and random sample consensus are used to locate the needle within each image and estimate the needle shape. The method is validated with an in vitro needle insertion setup and a transparent tissue phantom, where two orthogonal cameras are used to capture the true 3-D needle shape for verification. Results showed that the use of at least three images obtained at 75% of the maximum insertion depth or greater allows for maximum needle shape estimation errors of less than 2 mm. In addition, the needle shape can be calculated consistently as long as the needle can be identified in 30% of the transverse US images obtained. Application to permanent prostate brachytherapy is also presented, where the estimated needle shape is compared to manual segmentation and sagittal US images. Our method is intended to help to assess needle placement during manual or robot-assisted needle insertion procedures after the needle has been inserted.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health InformaticsSame topicImage and Object Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207