Image Segmentation for the Treatment Planning of Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MRgHIFU) Therapy: A Parametric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present research work, image segmentation methods were studied to find internal parameters that provide an efficient identification of the regions of interest in Magnetic Resonance (MR) images used for the therapy planning of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU), a minimally invasive therapeutic method used for selective ablation of tissue. The involved image segmentation methods were threshold, level set and watershed segmentation algorithm with markers (WSAM), and they were applied to transverse and sagittal MR images obtained from an experimental setup of a murine experiment. A parametric study, involving segmentation tests with different values for the internal parameters, was carried out. The F-measure results from the parametric study were analyzed by region using Welch’s ANOVA followed by post hoc Games-Howell test to determine the most appropriate method for region identification. In transverse images, the threshold method had the best performance for the air region with a F-measure median of 0.9802 (0.9743–0.9847, interquartile range IQR 0.0104), the WSAM for the tissue, gel-pad, transducer and water region with a F-measure median of 0.9224 (0.8718–0.9468, IQR 0.075), 0.9553 (0.9496–0.9606, IQR 0.011), 0.9416 (0.9330–0.9540, IQR 0.021) and 0.9769 (0.9741–0.9803, IQR 0.0062), respectively. In sagittal images, threshold method had the best performance for the air region with a F-measure median of 0.9680 (0.9589–0.9735, IQR 0.0146), the WSAM for the tissue and gel-pad regions with a F-measure median of 0.9241 (0.8870–0.9426, IQR 0.0556) and 0.9553 (0.9472–0.9625, IQR 0.0153), respectively, and the Geodesic Active Contours (GAC) method for the transducer and water regions with a F-measure median of 0.9323 (0.9221–0.9402, IQR 0.0181) and 0.9681 (0.9627–0.9715, IQR 0.0088), respectively. The present research work integrates preliminary results to generate more efficient procedures of image segmentation for treatment planning of the MRgHIFU therapy. Future work will address the search of an automatic segmentation process, regardless of the experimental setup.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".