MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1972838817 · doi:10.1118/1.3613358

WE‐D‐220‐04: Operator Uncertainties in a Soft Tissue 3D Ultrasound Image Guided Radiotherapy System

2011· article· en· W1972838817 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Skadi van der Meer, Elizabeth M. Bloemen, J Hermans, R. Voncken, Denys Heuvelmans, Carol Gubbels, Maaike Berbée, Enrica Seravalli, P. Visser, Ludy Lutgens, Francis van Gils, Frank Verhaegen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage-guided radiation therapyMedical imagingRadiation therapyMedicineDosimetryStandard deviationUltrasoundDisplacement (psychology)Nuclear medicineProstate3D ultrasoundRadiologyComputer scienceMathematicsCancerStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Image Guided Radiotherapy (IGRT) is a necessity for accurate radiotherapy. Ultrasound (US) imaging is a frequently used diagnostic technique for qualitative imaging of soft tissues. Recently, a quantitative 3D US system was introduced (Clarity system, Resonant Medical, Canada) which can assess the position of soft tissue in absolute space. Before introducing the device into daily practice, user variability, during both image acquisition and matching procedures must be determined. In this study we determined the inter‐ and intra‐operator variability of 3D US matching in prostate cancer patients. Moreover, we studied the influence of the scan variability on patient setup corrections, and the influence of probe pressure on the prostate position while using a strict bladder filling protocol. Methods: For 12 prostate patients multiple US scans are acquired by one or two operators during treatment. The repeated scans are matched to the reference US‐scan by a single user (variability for scanning). The remaining scans are matched three times by different users, and for each patient one single scan is matched five times by the same user (variability for matching). Results: In all three directions the mean intra‐operator difference ranges from 1.5 to 2.4 mm, with a standard deviation of approximately 1.7 mm. The mean inter‐operator difference is of the same order, 1.7 to 2.3 ± 1.8 mm. The prostate displacement due to the probe pressure varies from patient to patient and is not limited to one direction. Only the superior/inferior displacement seemed significant for high pressure, which was not needed to obtain good image quality with our bladder filling protocol. The total uncertainty is conservatively estimated to be 4 mm. Conclusions: The uncertainty of the 3D US IGRT system is comparable to the uncertainty of the current standard IGRT for prostate: electronic portal imager in combination with fiducial markers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→