Automated planning of breast radiotherapy using cone beam CT imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Develop and clinically validate a methodology for using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging in an automated treatment planning framework for breast IMRT. METHODS: A technique for intensity correction of CBCT images was developed and evaluated. The technique is based on histogram matching of CBCT image sets, using information from "similar" planning CT image sets from a database of paired CBCT and CT image sets (n = 38). Automated treatment plans were generated for a testing subset (n = 15) on the planning CT and the corrected CBCT. The plans generated on the corrected CBCT were compared to the CT-based plans in terms of beam parameters, dosimetric indices, and dose distributions. RESULTS: The corrected CBCT images showed considerable similarity to their corresponding planning CTs (average mutual information 1.0±0.1, average sum of absolute differences 185 ± 38). The automated CBCT-based plans were clinically acceptable, as well as equivalent to the CT-based plans with average gantry angle difference of 0.99°±1.1°, target volume overlap index (Dice) of 0.89±0.04 although with slightly higher maximum target doses (4482±90 vs 4560±84, P < 0.05). Gamma index analysis (3%, 3 mm) showed that the CBCT-based plans had the same dose distribution as plans calculated with the same beams on the registered planning CTs (average gamma index 0.12±0.04, gamma <1 in 99.4%±0.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method demonstrates the potential for a clinically feasible and efficient online adaptive breast IMRT planning method based on CBCT imaging, integrating automation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".