MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317795309 · doi:10.1109/tuffc.2023.3239320

Toward Estimating MRI-Ultrasound Registration Error in Image-Guided Neurosurgery

2023· article· en· W4317795309 on OpenAlexafffund
Joshua Bierbrier, Mohammadreza Eskandari, Daniel A. Di Giovanni, D. Louis Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsNeuronavigationImage registrationUltrasoundArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkMagnetic resonance imagingComputer scienceComputer vision3D ultrasoundRadiologyMedicineImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image-guided neurosurgery allows surgeons to view their tools in relation to preoperatively acquired patient images and models. To continue using neuronavigation systems throughout operations, image registration between preoperative images [typically magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)] and intraoperative images (e.g., ultrasound) is common to account for brain shift (deformations of the brain during surgery). We implemented a method to estimate MRI-ultrasound registration errors, with the goal of enabling surgeons to quantitatively assess the performance of linear or nonlinear registrations. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first dense error estimating algorithm applied to multimodal image registrations. The algorithm is based on a previously proposed sliding-window convolutional neural network that operates on a voxelwise basis. To create training data where the true registration error is known, simulated ultrasound images were created from preoperative MRI images and artificially deformed. The model was evaluated on artificially deformed simulated ultrasound data and real ultrasound data with manually annotated landmark points. The model achieved a mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.977 ± 0.988 mm and a correlation of 0.8 ± 0.062 on the simulated ultrasound data, and an MAE of 2.24 ± 1.89 mm and a correlation of 0.246 on the real ultrasound data. We discuss concrete areas to improve the results on real ultrasound data. Our progress lays the foundation for future developments and ultimately implementation of clinical neuronavigation systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency ControlSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207