AAPM Task Group Report 311: Guidance for performance evaluation of fluorescence‐guided surgery systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last decade has seen a large growth in fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) imaging and interventions. With the increasing number of clinical specialties implementing FGS, the range of systems with radically different physical designs, image processing approaches, and performance requirements is expanding. This variety of systems makes it nearly impossible to specify uniform performance goals, yet at the same time, utilization of different devices in new clinical procedures and trials indicates some need for common knowledge bases and a quality assessment paradigm to ensure that effective translation and use occurs. It is feasible to identify key fundamental image quality characteristics and corresponding objective test methods that should be determined such that there are consistent conventions across a variety of FGS devices. This report outlines test methods, tissue simulating phantoms and suggested guidelines, as well as personnel needs and professional knowledge bases that can be established. This report frames the issues with guidance and feedback from related societies and agencies having vested interest in the outcome, coming from an independent scientific group formed from academics and international federal agencies for the establishment of these professional guidelines.
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 | 0.061 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.028 |
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".