Fluorescence‐guided surgery and intervention — An <scp>AAPM</scp> emerging technology blue paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) and other interventions are rapidly evolving as a class of technologically driven interventional approaches in which many surgical specialties visualize fluorescent molecular tracers or biomarkers through associated cameras or oculars to guide clinical decisions on pathological lesion detection and excision/ablation. The technology has been commercialized for some specific applications, but also presents technical challenges unique to optical imaging that could confound the utility of some interventional procedures where real-time decisions must be made. Accordingly, the AAPM has initiated the publication of this Blue Paper of The Emerging Technology Working Group (TETAWG) and the creation of a Task Group from the Therapy Physics Committee within the Treatment Delivery Subcommittee. In describing the relevant issues, this document outlines the key parameters, stakeholders, impacts, and outcomes of clinical FGS technology and its applications. The presentation is not intended to be conclusive, but rather to inform the field of medical physics and stimulate the discussions needed in the field with respect to a seemingly low-risk imaging technology that has high potential for significant therapeutic impact. This AAPM Task Group is working toward consensus around guidelines and standards for advancing the field safely and effectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".