Automatic Radiofrequency Ablation Planning for Liver Tumors With Multiple Constraints Based on Set Covering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is now a widely used minimally invasive treatment method for hepatic tumors. Preoperative planning plays a vital role in RFA therapy. With increasing tumor size, multiple overlapping ablations are needed, which are challenging to optimize while considering clinical constraints. In this paper, we present a new automatic RFA planning method. First, a 2-steps set cover-based model is formulated, which can integrate multiple clinical constraints for optimization of overlapping ablations. To ensure that the planning model can be solved in a reasonable time, a search space reducing strategy is then proposed. We also developed an algorithm for automatic RFA electrode selection, which provides a proper electrode ablation zone for the planning model. The proposed method was evaluated with 20 tumors of varying sizes (0.92 cm <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">3</sup> to 28.4 cm <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">3</sup> ). Results showed that the proposed method can generate clinical feasible RFA plans with a minimum number of RFA electrodes and ablations, complete tumor coverage and minimized ablation of normal tissue.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".