MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210594465 · doi:10.1002/mp.15522

The challenges facing deep learning–based catheter localization for ultrasound guided high‐dose‐rate prostate brachytherapy

2022· article· en· W4210594465 on OpenAlexafffund
Derek Liu, Shayantonee Tupor, Jaskaran Singh, Trey Chernoff, Nelson Leong, Evgeny Sadikov, Asim Amjad, Sandra Zilles

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaSaskatchewan Cancer AgencyUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSaskatchewan Cancer AgencyUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsDeep learningCatheterBrachytherapyComputer scienceIterative reconstructionUltrasoundArtificial intelligenceMedical imagingProstate brachytherapyWorkflow3D ultrasoundMetric (unit)MedicineRadiologyComputer visionMedical physicsRadiation therapyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Automated catheter localization for ultrasound guided high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy faces challenges relating to imaging noise and artifacts. To date, catheter reconstruction during the clinical procedure is performed manually. Deep learning has been successfully applied to a wide variety of complex tasks and has the potential to tackle the unique challenges associated with multiple catheter localization on ultrasound. Such a task is well suited for automation, with the potential to improve productivity and reliability. PURPOSE: We developed a deep learning model for automated catheter reconstruction and investigated potential factors influencing model performance. The model was designed to integrate into a clinical workflow, with a proposed reconstruction confidence metric to aid in planner verification. METHODS: Datasets from 242 patients treated from 2016 to 2020 were collected retrospectively. The anonymized dataset comprises 31,000 transverse images reconstructed from 3D sagittal ultrasound acquisitions and 3500 implanted catheters manually localized by the planner. Each catheter was retrospectively ranked based on the severity of imaging artifacts affecting reconstruction difficulty. The U-NET deep learning architecture was trained to localize implanted catheters on transverse images. A fivefold cross-validation method was used, allowing for evaluation over the entire dataset. The postprocessing software combined the predictions with patient-specific implant information to reconstructed catheters in 3D space, uniquely matched to the implanted grid positions. A reconstruction confidence metric was calculated based on the number and probability of localized predictions per catheter. For each patient, deep learning prediction and postprocessing reconstruction were completed in under 2 min on a nonperformance PC. RESULTS: Overall, 80% of catheter reconstructions were accurate, within 2 mm along 90% of the length. The catheter tip was often not detected and required extrapolation during reconstruction. The reconstruction accuracy was 89% for the easiest catheter ranking and decreased to 13% for the highest difficulty ranking, when the aid of live ultrasound would have been recommended. Even when limited to the easiest ranked catheters, the reconstruction accuracy decreased at distal grid positions, down to 50%. Individual implantation style was found to influence the frequency of severe artifacts, slightly impacting the model accuracy. A reconstruction confidence metric identified the difficult catheters, removed the observed individual variation, and increased the overall accuracy to 91% while excluding 27% of the reconstructions. CONCLUSIONS: The deep learning model localized implanted catheters over a large clinical dataset, with overall promising results. The model faced challenges due to ultrasound artifacts and image degradation distal to the probe, underlining the continued importance of maintaining image quality and minimizing artifacts. A potential workflow for integration into the clinical procedure was demonstrated, including the use of a confidence metric to predict low accuracy reconstructions. Comparison between models evaluated on different datasets should also consider underlying differences, such as the frequency and severity of imaging artifacts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207