MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1891921144 · doi:10.1118/1.4932628

Collision prediction software for radiotherapy treatments

2015· article· en· W1891921144 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Padilla, Erik Pearson, Charles A. Pelizzari

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation therapyMedical physicsSoftwareComputer scienceMedicineRadiologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This work presents a method of collision predictions for external beam radiotherapy using surface imaging. The present methodology focuses on collision prediction during treatment simulation to evaluate the clearance of a patient's treatment position and allow for its modification if necessary. METHODS: A Kinect camera (Microsoft, Redmond, WA) is used to scan the patient and immobilization devices in the treatment position at the simulator. The surface is reconstructed using the skanect software (Occipital, Inc., San Francisco, CA). The treatment isocenter is marked using simulated orthogonal lasers projected on the surface scan. The point cloud of this surface is then shifted to isocenter and converted from Cartesian to cylindrical coordinates. A slab models the treatment couch. A cylinder with a radius equal to the normal distance from isocenter to the collimator plate, and a height defined by the collimator diameter is used to estimate collisions. Points within the cylinder clear through a full gantry rotation with the treatment couch at 0°, while points outside of it collide. The angles of collision are reported. This methodology was experimentally verified using a mannequin positioned in an alpha cradle with both arms up. A planning CT scan of the mannequin was performed, two isocenters were marked in pinnacle, and this information was exported to AlignRT (VisionRT, London, UK)--a surface imaging system for patient positioning. This was used to ensure accurate positioning of the mannequin in the treatment room, when available. Collision calculations were performed for the two treatment isocenters and the results compared to the collisions detected the room. The accuracy of the Kinect-Skanect surface was evaluated by comparing it to the external surface of the planning CT scan. RESULTS: Experimental verification results showed that the predicted angles of collision matched those recorded in the room within 0.5°, in most cases (largest deviation -1.2°). The accuracy study for the Kinect-Skanect surface showed an average discrepancy between the CT external contour and the surface scan of 2.2 mm. CONCLUSIONS: This methodology provides fast and reliable collision predictions using surface imaging. The use of the Kinect-Skanect system allows for a comprehensive modeling of the patient topography including all the relevant anatomy and immobilization devices that may lead to collisions. The use of this tool at the treatment simulation stage may allow therapists to evaluate the clearance of a patient's treatment position and optimize it before the planning CT scan is performed. This can allow for safer treatments for the patients due to better collision predictions and improved clinical workflow by minimizing replanning and resimulations due to unforeseen clearance issues.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207