MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1542507286 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/60/15/6039

Development of virtual patient models for permanent implant brachytherapy Monte Carlo dose calculations: interdependence of CT image artifact mitigation and tissue assignment

2015· article· en· W1542507286 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité LavalCarleton University
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCancer Research Institute
KeywordsImaging phantomVoxelComputer scienceBrachytherapyArtifact (error)Monte Carlo methodScannerReduction (mathematics)Filter (signal processing)Hounsfield scaleNuclear medicineArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputed tomographyMedicineMathematicsRadiologyRadiation therapyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work investigates and compares CT image metallic artifact reduction (MAR) methods and tissue assignment schemes (TAS) for the development of virtual patient models for permanent implant brachytherapy Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations. Four MAR techniques are investigated to mitigate seed artifacts from post-implant CT images of a homogeneous phantom and eight prostate patients: a raw sinogram approach using the original CT scanner data and three methods (simple threshold replacement (STR), 3D median filter, and virtual sinogram) requiring only the reconstructed CT image. Virtual patient models are developed using six TAS ranging from the AAPM-ESTRO-ABG TG-186 basic approach of assigning uniform density tissues (resulting in a model not dependent on MAR) to more complex models assigning prostate, calcification, and mixtures of prostate and calcification using CT-derived densities. The EGSnrc user-code BrachyDose is employed to calculate dose distributions. All four MAR methods eliminate bright seed spot artifacts, and the image-based methods provide comparable mitigation of artifacts compared with the raw sinogram approach. However, each MAR technique has limitations: STR is unable to mitigate low CT number artifacts, the median filter blurs the image which challenges the preservation of tissue heterogeneities, and both sinogram approaches introduce new streaks. Large local dose differences are generally due to differences in voxel tissue-type rather than mass density. The largest differences in target dose metrics (D90, V100, V150), over 50% lower compared to the other models, are when uncorrected CT images are used with TAS that consider calcifications. Metrics found using models which include calcifications are generally a few percent lower than prostate-only models. Generally, metrics from any MAR method and any TAS which considers calcifications agree within 6%. Overall, the studied MAR methods and TAS show promise for further retrospective MC dose calculation studies for various permanent implant brachytherapy treatments.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it