Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Ultrasound-Guided Focused Ultrasound Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Focused ultrasound (FUS) therapy has emerged as a promising non-invasive solution for tumor ablation. Accurate monitoring and guidance of ultrasound energy is crucial for effective FUS treatment. Although ultrasound (US) imaging is a well-suited modality for FUS monitoring, US-guided FUS (USgFUS) faces challenges in achieving precise monitoring, leading to unpredictable ablation shapes and a lack of quantitative measurement. To address these challenges, we propose an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted USgFUS framework that integrates an AI segmentation framework with ultrasound B-mode imaging for quantitative and real-time monitoring of FUS treatment. The AI framework can accurately identify and label ablated areas in the B-mode images captured during and after each FUS sonication procedure in real-time. To assess the feasibility of our proposed method, we developed an AI segmentation framework based on the Swin-Unet architecture and conducted an in vitro experimental study using a USgFUS setup and chicken breast tissue. The results indicated that the developed AI segmentation framework could immediately label the ablated tissue areas with \(93\%\) accuracy. These findings suggest that AI-assisted ultrasound monitoring can significantly improve the precision and accuracy of FUS treatments, suggesting a crucial advancement towards the development of more effective FUS treatment strategies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".