WE-AB-303-05: Breathing Motion of Liver Segments From Fiducial Tracking During Robotic Radiosurgery and Comparison with 4D-CT-Derived Fiducial Motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To quantify respiratory-induced motion of liver segments using the positions of implanted fiducials during robotic radiosurgery. This study also compared fiducial motion derived from four-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT) maximum intensity projections (MIP) with motion derived from imaging during treatment. Methods: Forty-two consecutive liver patients treated with liver ablative radiotherapy were accrued to an ethics approved retrospective study. The liver segment in which each fiducial resided was identified. Fiducial positions throughout each treatment fraction were determined using orthogonal kilovoltage images. Any data due to patient repositioning or motion was removed. Mean fiducial positions were calculated. Fiducial positions beyond two standard deviations of the mean were discarded and remaining positions were fit to a line segment using least squares minimization (LSM). For eight patients, fiducial motion was derived from 4D-CT MIPs by calculating the CT number weighted mean position of the fiducial on each slice and fitting a line segment to these points using LSM. Treatment derived fiducial trajectories were corrected for patient rotation and compared to MIP derived trajectories. Results: The mean total magnitude of fiducial motion across all liver segments in left-right, anteroposterior, and superoinferior (SI) directions were 3.0 ± 0.2 mm, 9.3 ± 0.4 mm, and 20.5 ± 0.5 mm, respectively. Differences in per-segment mean fiducial motion were found with SI motion ranging from 12.6 ± 0.8 mm to 22.6 ± 0.9 mm for segments 3 and 8, respectively. Large, varied differences between treatment and MIP derived motion at simulation were found with the mean difference for SI motion being 2.6 mm (10.8 mm standard deviation). Conclusion: The magnitude of liver fiducial motion was found to differ by liver segment. MIP derived liver fiducial motion differed from motion observed during treatment, implying that 4D-CTs may not accurately capture the range of liver motion across fractions and during treatment. Author V. Nair was funded by the Cushing estate for a SABR clinical research fellowship
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".