SU‐C‐204‐04: Patient Specific Proton Stopping Powers Estimation by Combining Proton Radiography and Prior‐Knowledge X‐Ray CT Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The material relative stopping power (RSP) uncertainty is the highest contributor to the range uncertainty in proton therapy. The purpose of this work is to develop a robust and systematic method that yields accurate, patient specific, RSP by combining 1) pre‐treatment x‐ray CT and 2) daily proton radiograph of the patient. Methods: The method is formulated as a linear least‐square optimization problem (min||Ax‐B||2). The parameter A represents the pathlength crossed by the proton in each material. The RSPs for the materials (water equivalent thickness (WET)/physical thickness) are denoted by x. B is the proton radiograph expressed as WET crossed. The problem is minimized using a convex‐conic optimization algorithm with xi Results: Optimization with 9 angles and 104 protons/angle yields precise RSP (<0.75%) for all materials, except plastic lung (1.5%). Average deviation relative to Geant4 RSP is 0.5% and 3.5% using HU‐RSP. Using more than two angles or more than 4×103 proton does not further increase the RSP estimate accuracy. The insert distance to the beam initial plane is related to the RSP error for this insert material. Specific filters are applied on the proton angle and energy loss to remove nuclear interaction artefacts. Conclusion: The proposed formulation of the problem with prior knowledge x‐ray CT demonstrates serious potential to increase the accuracy of present RSP estimates.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".