Poster - Thur Eve - 12: Dosimetric manifestation of harmonic mode imaging for seed implant brachytherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the dosimetric effects of observer variability in defining the prostate and critical organs, using Tissue Harmonic (H) ultrasound imaging mode for permanent seed implant brachytherapy. METHODS: Images were acquired using a B -K medical 8848 probe with Brightness (B) and H mode for ten prostate brachytherapy patients. The prostate, rectum and urethra were contoured independently by five observers. The clinically used treatment plans based on B mode imaging fulfilling the dosimetric criteria were applied on these contours. Dosimetric parameters (prostate: D90, V100 and V200; rectum: V100; urethra: V140, V150 and V160) were computed using SPOT PRO™ planning system. Interobserver variability in dosimetric parameters was tested using standard deviations as percentages of means. RESULTS: Two-factor analysis of variances showed significant (p<0.05) interobserver variability in all dosimetric parameters for both modes. Interobserver agreement in dosimetric parameters improves in H mode due to improved interobserver consistency in contouring these organs on H mode images compared to B mode. There is no significant difference observed (paired student t test, p>0.05) in the mean values of dosimetric parameters in H and B mode for prostate and critical organs. CONCLUSIONS: H mode due to its better image quality helped to improve the interobserver agreement in contouring the prostate and critical organs and hence better interobserver consistency in all dosimetric parameter. Because the difference in the mean value of dosimetric parameters between two imaging modes is not statistically significant, H mode does not appear to offer any clinical advantages in terms of improving the dosimetric outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".