MO‐F‐CAMPUS‐J‐04: Tissue Segmentation‐Based MR Electron Density Mapping Method for MR‐Only Radiation Treatment Planning of Brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Automatically derive electron density of tissues using MR images and generate a pseudo‐CT for MR‐only treatment planning of brain tumours. Methods: 20 stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) patients’ T1‐weighted MR images and CT images were retrospectively acquired. First, a semi‐automated tissue segmentation algorithm was developed to differentiate tissues with similar MR intensities and large differences in electron densities. The method started with approximately 12 slices of manually contoured spatial regions containing sinuses and airways, then air, bone, brain, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and eyes were automatically segmented using edge detection and anatomical information including location, shape, tissue uniformity and relative intensity distribution. Next, soft tissues ‐ muscle and fat were segmented based on their relative intensity histogram. Finally, intensities of voxels in each segmented tissue were mapped into their electron density range to generate pseudo‐CT by linearly fitting their relative intensity histograms. Co‐registered CT was used as a ground truth. The bone segmentations of pseudo‐CT were compared with those of co‐registered CT obtained by using a 300HU threshold. The average distances between voxels on external edges of the skull of pseudo‐CT and CT in three axial, coronal and sagittal slices with the largest width of skull were calculated. The mean absolute electron density (in Hounsfield unit) difference of voxels in each segmented tissues was calculated. Results: The average of distances between voxels on external skull from pseudo‐CT and CT were 0.6±1.1mm (mean±1SD). The mean absolute electron density differences for bone, brain, CSF, muscle and fat are 78±114 HU, and 21±8 HU, 14±29 HU, 57±37 HU, and 31±63 HU, respectively. Conclusion: The semi‐automated MR electron density mapping technique was developed using T1‐weighted MR images. The generated pseudo‐CT is comparable to that of CT in terms of anatomical position of tissues and similarity of electron density assignment. This method can allow MR‐only treatment planning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".