MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283588689 · doi:10.1002/mp.15825

Planning system for the optimization of electric field delivery using implanted electrodes for brain tumor control

2022· article· en· W4283588689 on OpenAlexafffund
Erin Iredale, Brynn Voigt, Adam Rankin, Kyungho W. Kim, Jeff Z. Chen, Susanne Schmid, Matthew O. Hebb, Terry M. Peters, Eugene Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationCancer Research Society
KeywordsImaging phantomComputer scienceRadiation treatment planningBiomedical engineeringPipeline (software)VoltageMaterials scienceMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineMedicineRadiologyElectrical engineeringEngineeringRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The use of non-ionizing electric fields from low-intensity voltage sources (< 10 V) to control malignant tumor growth is showing increasing potential as a cancer treatment modality. A method of applying these low-intensity electric fields using multiple implanted electrodes within or adjacent to tumor volumes has been termed as intratumoral modulation therapy (IMT). PURPOSE: This study explores advancements in the previously established IMT optimization algorithm, and the development of a custom treatment planning system for patient-specific IMT. The practicality of the treatment planning system is demonstrated by implementing the full optimization pipeline on a brain phantom with robotic electrode implantation, postoperative imaging, and treatment stimulation. METHODS: The integrated planning pipeline in 3D Slicer begins with importing and segmenting patient magnetic resonance images (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) images. The segmentation process is manual, followed by a semi-automatic smoothing step that allows the segmented brain and tumor mesh volumes to be smoothed and simplified by applying selected filters. Electrode trajectories are planned manually on the patient MRI or CT by selecting insertion and tip coordinates for a chosen number of electrodes. The electrode tip positions and stimulation parameters (phase shift and voltage) can then be optimized with the custom semi-automatic IMT optimization algorithm where users can select the prescription electric field, voltage amplitude limit, tissue electrical properties, nearby organs at risk, optimization parameters (electrode tip location, individual contact phase shift and voltage), desired field coverage percent, and field conformity optimization. Tables of optimization results are displayed, and the resulting electric field is visualized as a field-map superimposed on the MR or CT image, with 3D renderings of the brain, tumor, and electrodes. Optimized electrode coordinates are transferred to robotic electrode implantation software to enable planning and subsequent implantation of the electrodes at the desired trajectories. RESULTS: An IMT treatment planning system was developed that incorporates patient-specific MRI or CT, segmentation, volume smoothing, electrode trajectory planning, electrode tip location and stimulation parameter optimization, and results visualization. All previous manual pipeline steps operating on diverse software platforms were coalesced into a single semi-automated 3D Slicer-based user interface. Brain phantom validation of the full system implementation was successful in preoperative planning, robotic electrode implantation, and postoperative treatment planning to adjust stimulation parameters based on actual implant locations. Voltage measurements were obtained in the brain phantom to determine the electrical parameters of the phantom and validate the simulated electric field distribution. CONCLUSIONS: A custom treatment planning and implantation system for IMT has been developed in this study and validated on a phantom brain model, providing an essential step in advancing IMT technology toward future clinical safety and efficacy investigations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207