Three-dimensionally printed navigational template: a promising guiding approach for lung biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Percutaneous transthoracic lung biopsy is customarily conducted under computed tomography (CT) guidance, which primarily depends on the conductors' experience and inevitably contributes to long procedural duration and radiation exposure. Novel technique facilitating lung biopsy is currently demanded. Methods: Based on the reconstructed anatomical information of CT scans, a three-dimensionally printed navigational template was customized to guide fine-needle aspiration (FNA). The needle insertion site and angle could be indicated by the template after proper placement according to the reference landmarks. From June 2020 to August 2020, patients with peripheral indeterminate lung lesions ≥30 mm in diameter were enrolled in a pilot trial. Cases were considered successful when the virtual line indicated by the template in the first CT scan was pointing at the target, and the rate of success was recorded. The insertion deviation, procedural duration, radiation exposure, biopsy-related complications, and diagnostic yield were documented as well. Results: received template-guided FNA. The median nodule size of the patients was 41.2 (IQR, 36.2-51.9) mm and 17 lesions were successfully targeted (success rate, 94.4%). One lesion was not reached through the designed trajectory due to an unpredictable alteration of the lesion's location resulting from pleural effusion. The median deviation between the actual position of the needle tip and the designed route was 9.4 (IQR, 6.8-11.7) mm. The median procedural duration was 10.7 (IQR, 9.7-11.8) min, and the median radiation exposure was 220.9 (IQR, 198.6-249.5) mGy×cm. No major biopsy-related complication was encountered. Definitive diagnosis of malignancy was reached in 13 of the 17 (76.5%) participants. Conclusions: The feasibility and safety of navigational template-guided FNA were preliminarily validated in lung biopsy cohort. Nonetheless, patients with pleural effusion were not recommended to undergo FNA guided by such technique. Trial Registration: This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT03325907).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".