SU-E-J-58: Comparison of Conformal Tracking Methods Using Initial, Adaptive and Preceding Image Frames for Image Registration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Accounting for tumor motion during radiation therapy is important to ensure that the tumor receives the prescribed dose. Increasing the field size to account for this motion exposes the surrounding healthy tissues to unnecessary radiation. In contrast to using motion-encompassing techniques to treat moving tumors, conformal radiation therapy (RT) uses a smaller field to track the tumor and adapts the beam aperture according to the motion detected. This work investigates and compares the performance of three markerless, EPID based, optical flow methods to track tumor motion with conformal RT. Methods: Three techniques were used to track the motions of a 3D printed lung tumor programmed to move according to the tumor of seven lung cancer patients. These techniques utilized a multi-resolution optical flow algorithm as the core computation for image registration. The first method (DIR) registers the incoming images with an initial reference frame, while the second method (RFSF) uses an adaptive reference frame and the third method (CU) uses preceding image frames for registration. The patient traces and errors were evaluated for the seven patients. Results: The average position errors for all patient traces were 0.12 ± 0.33 mm, −0.05 ± 0.04 mm and −0.28 ± 0.44 mm for CU, DIR and RFSF method respectively. The position errors distributed within 1 standard deviation are 0.74 mm, 0.37 mm and 0.96 mm respectively. The CU and RFSF algorithms are sensitive to the characteristics of the patient trace and produce a wider distribution of errors amongst patients. Although the mean error for the DIR method is negatively biased (−0.05 mm) for all patients, it has the narrowest distribution of position error, which can be corrected using an offset calibration. Conclusion: Three techniques of image registration and position update were studied. Using direct comparison with an initial frame yields the best performance. The authors would like to thank Dr.YeLin Suh for making the Cyberknife dataset available to us. Scholarship funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and CancerCare Manitoba Foundation is acknowledged.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".