PMC

Conductivity reconstruction for three in silico pelvic models (that share same anatomy but different tissue conductivity, pelvic model #15). Pelvis conductivity from a healthy subject (i.e. no tumour/muscle contrast) is displayed in top row. Conductivity from two cervical cancer patients is also shown: one with good tumour/muscle contrast (0.35 Sm⁻¹, middle row) and one with poor tumour/muscle contrast (0.13 Sm⁻¹, bottom row). Maps for ground truth conductivity (first column), Helmholtz‐based conductivity (σ _H, second column), DL‐EPT conductivity tested with Net_EM‐B ₁ (third column) and the difference between Net_EM‐B ₁ conductivity and ground truth conductivity (fourth column) are reported

Spectrograms: ground conductivity meter signal for the interference-free case (a); incorrect measurements due to interference (b); frequency changes of the ground conductivity meter by the application of tracking and prediction for the interference signal (c).

Comparison between conductivity maps reconstructed with Net_MR‐B ₁ and Net_MR‐ϕ^±, the networks trained on noisy MR simulated data using both and ϕ^±,mr or only ϕ^±,mr, respectively. Maps for ground truth conductivity (first column), DL‐EPT conductivity reconstructed by Net_MR‐B ₁ (second column), DL‐EPT conductivity reconstructed by Net_MR‐ϕ^± (third column) and the conductivity difference between Net_MR‐B ₁ and Net_MR‐ϕ^± (fourth column) are shown for two pelvic models with different anatomies (one thin patient, model #07, and one fat patient, model #21)

Simplified model of measurements using the ground conductivity meter.