WE-A-17A-10: Fast, Automatic and Accurate Catheter Reconstruction in HDR Brachytherapy Using An Electromagnetic 3D Tracking System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: In high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-B), actual catheter reconstruction protocols are slow and errors prompt. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and robustness of an electromagnetic (EM) tracking system for improved catheter reconstruction in HDR-B protocols. Methods: For this proof-of-principle, a total of 10 catheters were inserted in gelatin phantoms with different trajectories. Catheters were reconstructed using a Philips-design 18G biopsy needle (used as an EM stylet) and the second generation Aurora Planar Field Generator from Northern Digital Inc. The Aurora EM system exploits alternating current technology and generates 3D points at 40 Hz. Phantoms were also scanned using a μCT (GE Healthcare) and Philips Big Bore clinical CT system with a resolution of 0.089 mm and 2 mm, respectively. Reconstructions using the EM stylet were compared to μCT and CT. To assess the robustness of the EM reconstruction, 5 catheters were reconstructed twice and compared. Results: Reconstruction time for one catheter was 10 seconds or less. This would imply that for a typical clinical implant of 17 catheters, the total reconstruction time would be less than 3 minutes. When compared to the μCT, the mean EM tip identification error was 0.69 ± 0.29 mm while the CT error was 1.08 ± 0.67 mm. The mean 3D distance error was found to be 0.92 ± 0.37 mm and 1.74 ± 1.39 mm for the EM and CT, respectively. EM 3D catheter trajectories were found to be significantly more accurate (unpaired t-test, p < 0.05). A mean difference of less than 0.5 mm was found between successive EM reconstructions. Conclusion: The EM reconstruction was found to be faster, more accurate and more robust than the conventional methods used for catheter reconstruction in HDR-B. This approach can be applied to any type of catheters and applicators. We would like to disclose that the equipments, used in this study, is coming from a collaboration with Philips Medical
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".