Design of HIFU Treatment Plans Using Thermodynamic Equilibrium Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is a non-invasive medical procedure, which is mainly used to ablate tumors externally by focusing on them with high-frequency ultrasound. Because a single ablation can process only a small volume of tissue, a succession of ablations is required to treat a large volume of cancerous tissue. In order to maximize the therapeutic effect and reduce side effects such as skin burns, careful preoperative treatment planning must be performed to determine the focal location and sonication time for each ablation. This paper proposes a novel optimization algorithm, called the thermodynamic equilibrium algorithm (TEA), inspired by the behavior of thermodynamic systems reaching their equilibrium states. Like other evolutionary algorithms, TEA starts with an initial population. Gas chambers at various thermodynamic states are employed as representatives of the population individuals, and the equilibrium state is regarded as the global minimum. The movement of thermodynamic parameters in the direction of reducing the temperature gradient forms the basis of the proposed evolutionary algorithm. During this movement, the second law of thermodynamics is checked to ensure that entropy will increase in each process. This movement leads to the state where most of the systems are at equilibrium. In this state, the systems are localized at the same position and have the same cost as the global minimum. The TEA was applied to several well-known unconstrained and constrained benchmark cost functions, and the performance was compared with other well-known optimization algorithms. The results showed that the TEA has high potential to handle various types of optimization problems with a good convergence rate and high precision. Finally, the suggested evolutionary approach is applied to HIFU treatment regimens adopting a map of patient-specific material properties and an accurate thermal model. High-quality treatment plans could be created using the suggested method, and the average amount of tissue that is over- or under-treated was less than 0.08 percent.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".