Three‐dimensional therapy needle applicator segmentation for ultrasound‐guided focal liver ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Minimally invasive procedures, such as microwave ablation, are becoming first-line treatment options for early-stage liver cancer due to lower complication rates and shorter recovery times than conventional surgical techniques. Although these procedures are promising, one reason preventing widespread adoption is inadequate local tumor ablation leading to observations of higher local cancer recurrence compared to conventional procedures. Poor ablation coverage has been associated with two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound (US) guidance of the therapy needle applicators and has stimulated investigation into the use of three-dimensional (3D) US imaging for these procedures. We have developed a supervised 3D US needle applicator segmentation algorithm using a single user input to augment the addition of 3D US to the current focal liver tumor ablation workflow with the goals of identifying and improving needle applicator localization efficiency. METHODS: The algorithm is initialized by creating a spherical search space of line segments around a manually chosen seed point that is selected by a user on the needle applicator visualized in a 3D US image. The most probable trajectory is chosen by maximizing the count and intensity of threshold voxels along a line segment and is filtered using the Otsu method to determine the tip location. Homogeneous tissue mimicking phantom images containing needle applicators were used to optimize the parameters of the algorithm prior to a four-user investigation on retrospective 3D US images of patients who underwent microwave ablation for liver cancer. Trajectory, axis localization, and tip errors were computed based on comparisons to manual segmentations in 3D US images. RESULTS: Segmentation of needle applicators in ten phantom 3D US images was optimized to median (Q1, Q3) trajectory, axis, and tip errors of 2.1 (1.1, 3.6)°, 1.3 (0.8, 2.1) mm, and 1.3 (0.7, 2.5) mm, respectively, with a mean ± SD segmentation computation time of 0.246 ± 0.007 s. Use of the segmentation method with a 16 in vivo 3D US patient dataset resulted in median (Q1, Q3) trajectory, axis, and tip errors of 4.5 (2.4, 5.2)°, 1.9 (1.7, 2.1) mm, and 5.1 (2.2, 5.9) mm based on all users. CONCLUSIONS: Segmentation of needle applicators in 3D US images during minimally invasive liver cancer therapeutic procedures could provide a utility that enables enhanced needle applicator guidance, placement verification, and improved clinical workflow. A semi-automated 3D US needle applicator segmentation algorithm used in vivo demonstrated localization of the visualized trajectory and tip with less than 5° and 5.2 mm errors, respectively, in less than 0.31 s. This offers the ability to assess and adjust needle applicator placements intraoperatively to potentially decrease the observed liver cancer recurrence rates associated with current ablation procedures. Although optimized for deep and oblique angle needle applicator insertions, this proposed workflow has the potential to be altered for a variety of image-guided minimally invasive procedures to improve localization and verification of therapy needle applicators intraoperatively.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".