MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991580282 · doi:10.1118/1.4888135

SU‐E‐J‐83: Ion Imaging to Better Estimate In‐Vivo Relative Stopping Powers Using X‐Ray CT Prior‐Knowledge Information

2014· article· en· W1991580282 on OpenAlexaff
M Dias, Charles‐Antoine Collins‐Fekete, Marco Riboldi, Paul Doolan, David C. Hansen, G. Baroni, Joao Seco

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomStopping powerMonte Carlo methodEnergy (signal processing)AlgorithmIonPhysicsApproximation errorNuclear medicineMathematicsComputational physicsComputer scienceDetectorStatisticsOpticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To reduce uncertainties in relative stopping power (RSP) estimates for ions (alpha and carbon) by using Ion radiographic‐imaging and X‐ray CT prior‐knowledge. Methods: A 36×36 phantom matrix composed of 9 materials with different thicknesses and randomly placed is generated. Theoretical RSPs are calculated using stopping power (SP) data from three references (Janni, ICRU49 and Bischel). We introduced an artificial systematic error (1.5%, 2.5% or 3.5%) and a random error (<0.5%) to the SP to simulated patient ion‐range errors present in clinic environment. Carbon/alpha final energy for each RSPs set (theoretical and from CT images) is obtained with a ray‐tracing algorithm. A gradient descent (GD) method is used to minimize the difference in exit particle energy, between theory and X‐ray CT RSP maps, by iteratively correcting the RSP map from X‐ray CT. Once a new set of RSPs is obtained for a direction a new optimization is done over other direction using the RSPs from the previous optimization. Theoretical RSPs are compared with experimental RSPs obtained with Gammex Phantom. Results: Preliminary results show that optimized RSP values can be obtained with smaller uncertainties (<1%) than clinical RSPs (1.5% to 3.5%). Theoretical values from three different references show uncertainties, up to 3% from experimental values. Further investigation will consider prior‐knowledge from RSP obtained with CT images and ion radiographies from Monte Carlo Simulations. Conclusion: GD and ray‐tracing methods have been implemented to reduce RSP uncertainties from values obtained for clinical treatment. Experimental RSPs will be obtained using carbon/alpha beams to consider the existence of material dependent systematic errors. Based on the results, it is hoped to show that using ray‐tracing optimization with ion radiography and prior knowledge on RPSs, treatment planning accuracy and cost‐effectiveness can be improved.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207