A row-generation approach for simultaneous multiple needle trajectory planning in radiofrequency ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Radiofrequency ablation is a thermal therapy for moderately-sized cancerous tumors. A target is killed with high temperatures obtained due to the current passed through one or more electrodes (needles) inserted into it. The needles’ trajectory must be meticulously planned to prevent interference with dense organs like bone or puncturing of critical structures like veins. By approximating the thermal lesion to an ellipse, we predefine several valid needle trajectories and then solve an integer programming model to identify pairwise valid needle positions, that meet clinical criteria, using a variation of the classic set cover model. To improve the models’ tractability and scalability, we use row generation-based decomposition techniques that determines pairwise validity using two different types of cuts. Finally, we analyze target and organ-at-risk (OAR) damage using several thermal damage models. Our method is tested on 12 liver targets: three targets each with four different surgical margins. We show promising results that meet clinical guidelines while obtaining full target coverage.
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".