SU‐E‐J‐215: Towards MR‐Only Image Guided Identification of Calcifications and Brachytherapy Seeds: Application to Prostate and Breast LDR Implant Dosimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To identify and analyze the appearance of calcifications and brachytherapy seeds on magnitude and phase MRI images and to investigate whether they can be distinguished from each other on corrected phase images for application to prostate and breast low dose rate (LDR) implant dosimetry. Methods: An agar‐based gel phantom containing two LDR brachytherapy seeds (Advantage Pd‐103, IsoAid, 0.8mm diameter, 4.5mm length) and two spherical calcifications (large: 7mm diameter and small: 4mm diameter) was constructed and imaged on a 3T Philips MR scanner using a 16‐channel head coil and a susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) sequence (2mm slices, 320mm FOV, TR/ TE= 26.5/5.3ms, 15 degree flip angle). The phase images were unwrapped and corrected using a 32×32, 2D Hanning high pass filter to remove background phase noise. Appearance of the seeds and calcifications was assessed visually and quantitatively using Osirix (http://www.osirix‐viewer.com/). Results: As expected, calcifications and brachytherapy seeds appeared dark (hypointense) relative to the surrounding gel on the magnitude MRI images. The diameter of each seed without the surrounding artifact was measured to be 0.1 cm on the magnitude image, while diameters of 0.79 and 0.37 cm were measured for the larger and smaller calcifications, respectively. On the corrected phase images, the brachytherapy seeds and the calcifications appeared bright (hyperintense). The diameter of the seeds was larger on the phase images (0.17 cm) likely due to the dipole effect. Conclusion: MRI has the best soft tissue contrast for accurate organ delineation leading to most accurate implant dosimetry. This work demonstrated that phase images can potentially be useful in identifying brachytherapy seeds and calcifications in the prostate and breast due to their bright appearance, which helps in their visualization and quantification for accurate dosimetry using MR‐only. Future work includes optimizing phase filters to best identify and delineate seeds and calcifications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".