SU‐E‐J‐123: Assessing Segmentation Accuracy of Internal Volumes and Sub‐Volumes in 4D PET/CT of Lung Tumors Using a Novel 3D Printed Phantom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the accuracy of internal target volume (ITV) segmentation of lung tumors for treatment planning of simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) radiotherapy as seen in 4D PET/CT images, using a novel 3D‐printed phantom. Methods: The insert mimics high PET tracer uptake in the core and 50% uptake in the periphery, by using a porous design at the periphery. A lung phantom with the insert was placed on a programmable moving platform. Seven breathing waveforms of ideal and patient‐specific respiratory motion patterns were fed to the platform, and 4D PET/CT scans were acquired of each of them. CT images were binned into 10 phases, and PET images were binned into 5 phases following the clinical protocol. Two scenarios were investigated for segmentation: a gate 30–70 window, and no gating. The radiation oncologist contoured the outer ITV of the porous insert with on CT images, while the internal void volume with 100% uptake was contoured on PET images for being indistinguishable from the outer volume in CT images. Segmented ITVs were compared to the expected volumes based on known target size and motion. Results: 3 ideal breathing patterns, 2 regular‐breathing patient waveforms, and 2 irregular‐breathing patient waveforms were used for this study. 18F‐FDG was used as the PET tracer. The segmented ITVs from CT closely matched the expected motion for both no gating and gate 30–70 window, with disagreement of contoured ITV with respect to the expected volume not exceeding 13%. PET contours were seen to overestimate volumes in all the cases, up to more than 40%. Conclusion: 4DPET images of a novel 3D printed phantom designed to mimic different uptake values were obtained. 4DPET contours overestimated ITV volumes in all cases, while 4DCT contours matched expected ITV volume values. Investigation of the cause and effects of the discrepancies is undergoing.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".