SU‐E‐J‐224: Using UTE and T1 Weighted Spin Echo Pulse Sequences for MR‐Only Treatment Planning; Phantom Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Investigating a new approach in MRI based treatment planning using the combination of (Ultrashort Echo Time) UTE and T1 weighted spin echo pulse sequences to delineate air, bone and water (soft tissues) in generating pseudo CT images comparable with CT. Methods: A gel phantom containing chicken bones, ping pang balls filled with distilled water and air bubbles, was made. It scanned with MRI using UTE and 2D T1W SE pulse sequences with (in plane resolution= 0.53mm, slice thickness= 2 mm) and CT with (in plane resolution= 0.5 mm and slice thickness= 0.75mm) as a ground truth for geometrical accuracy. The UTE and T1W SE images were registered with CT using mutual information registration algorithm provided by Philips Pinnacle treatment planning system. The phantom boundaries were detected using Canny edge detection algorithm for CT, and MR images. The bone, air bubbles and water in ping pong balls were segmented from CT images using threshold 300HU, ‐ 950HU and 0HU, respectively. These tissue inserts were automatically segmented from combined UTE and T1W SE images using edge detection and relative intensity histograms of the phantom. The obtained segmentations of air, bone and water inserts were evaluated with those obtained from CT. Results: Bone and air can be clearly differentiated in UTE images comparable to CT. Combining UTE and T1W SE images successfully segmented the air, bone and water. The maximum segmentation differences from combine MRI images (UTE and T1W SE) and CT are within 1.3 mm, 1.1mm for bone, air, respectively. The geometric distortion of UTE sequence is small less than 1 pixel (0.53 mm) of MR image resolution. Conclusion: Our approach indicates that MRI can be used solely for treatment planning and its quality is comparable with CT.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".