Poster — Thur Eve — 40: Evaluation of Respiratory‐Induced Motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Collect statistics on respiratory induces internal motion to improve population based margin definition of target volumes and organs at risks and to determine the feasibility of screening patients that would most benefits from a 4DCT exam. Methods: Motion of relevant internal and external region of interest was evaluated on 4DCT datasets of 16 patients in an open study. Patients were selected based on tumour location. For a given 4DCT dataset, motion was characterized for each of 10 phases of the breathing cycle. Trace differences between two methods of respiratory signal acquisition were also evaluated. Results: Motion in the superior‐inferior (SI) direction, unlike other directions, showed a uniform motion trend between different structures. External markers have an opposed phase motion compared to internal structures. Diaphragm usually showed the largest averaged magnitude of motion (1.55±0.50 cm) with a wide range of amplitude. As can be expected, gastro‐intestinal tumors (0.88±0.27 cm) are in average less mobile than lung tumors (1.18±0.90 cm). Respiratory signal acquisition systems used for this study produced very similar traces regarding baseline variation and peak shape. Conclusion: Population‐based specific organs motion will be used for personalized treatment planning (e.g. delineation of margins, contours). Most structures have a similar shaped motion (i.e. no phase mismatch) and amplitude in the SI direction, except for external markers. Abdomen AP motion is a promising external indicator of internal motion magnitude.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".