ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2022
Toward intraoperative tissue classification: exploiting signal feedback from an ultrasonic aspirator for brain tissue differentiation.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI and machine learning in paediatric spine deformity surgery.Bone & joint open · 2025Article
- Clinical applications of artificial intelligence in robotic surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDuring brain tumor surgery, care must be taken to accurately differentiate between tumorous and healthy tissue, as inadvertent resection of functional brain areas can cause severe consequences. Since visual assessment can be difficult during tissue resection, neurosurgeons have to rely on the mechanical perception of tissue, which in itself is inherently challenging. A commonly used instrument for tumor resection is the ultrasonic aspirator, whose system behavior is already dependent on tissue properties. Using data recorded during tissue fragmentation, machine learning-based tissue differentiation is investigated for the first time utilizing ultrasonic aspirators.
methodsArtificial tissue model with two different mechanical properties is synthesized to represent healthy and tumorous tissue. 40,000 temporal measurement points of electrical data are recorded in a laboratory environment using a CNC machine. Three different machine learning approaches are applied: a random forest (RF), a fully connected neural network (NN) and a 1D convolutional neural network (CNN). Additionally, different preprocessing steps are investigated.
resultsFivefold cross-validation is conducted over the data and evaluated with the metrics F1, accuracy, positive predictive value, true positive rate and area under the receiver operating characteristic. Results show a generally good performance with a mean F1 of up to 0.900 ± 0.096 using a NN approach. Temporal information indicates low impact on classification performance, while a low-pass filter preprocessing step leads to superior results.
conclusionThis work demonstrates the first steps to successfully differentiate healthy brain and tumor tissue using an ultrasonic aspirator during tissue fragmentation. Evaluation shows that both neural network-based classifiers outperform the RF. In addition, the effects of temporal dependencies are found to be reduced when adequate data preprocessing is performed. To ensure subsequent implementation in the clinic, handheld ultrasonic aspirator use needs to be investigated in the future as well as the addition of data to reflect tissue diversity during neurosurgical operations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.