Thermal ablation of biological tissues in disease treatment: A review of computational models and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Percutaneous thermal ablation has proven to be an effective modality for treating both benign and malignant tumours in various tissues. Among these modalities, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is the most promising and widely adopted approach that has been extensively studied in the past decades. Microwave ablation (MWA) is a newly emerging modality that is gaining rapid momentum due to its capability of inducing rapid heating and attaining larger ablation volumes, and its lesser susceptibility to the heat sink effects as compared to RFA. Although the goal of both these therapies is to attain cell death in the target tissue by virtue of heating above 50°C, their underlying mechanism of action and principles greatly differs. Computational modelling is a powerful tool for studying the effect of electromagnetic interactions within the biological tissues and predicting the treatment outcomes during thermal ablative therapies. Such a priori estimation can assist the clinical practitioners during treatment planning with the goal of attaining successful tumour destruction and preservation of the surrounding healthy tissue and critical structures. This review provides current state-of-the-art developments and associated challenges in the computational modelling of thermal ablative techniques, viz., RFA and MWA, as well as touch upon several promising avenues in the modelling of laser ablation, nanoparticles assisted magnetic hyperthermia and non-invasive RFA. The application of RFA in pain relief has been extensively reviewed from modelling point of view. Additionally, future directions have also been provided to improve these models for their successful translation and integration into the hospital work flow.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".