Prostate brachytherapy postimplant dosimetry: Automatic plan reconstruction of stranded implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Plan reconstruction for permanent implant prostate brachytherapy is the process of determining the correspondence between planned and implanted seeds in postimplant analysis. Plan reconstruction informs many areas of brachytherapy quality assurance, including the verification of seed segmentation, misplacement and migration assessment, implant simulations, and the dosimetry of mixed-activity or mixed-species implants. METHODS: An algorithm has been developed for stranded implants which uses the interseed spacing constraints imposed by the suture to improve the accuracy of reconstruction. Seventy randomly selected clinical cases with a mean of 23.6 (range 18-30) needles and mean density of 2.0 (range 1.6-2.6) 2.0 (range 1.6-2.6) seeds/cm3 were automatically reconstructed and the accuracy compared to manual reconstructions performed using a custom 3D graphical interface. RESULTS: Using the automatic algorithm, the mean accuracy of the assignment relative to manual reconstruction was found to be 97.7 +/- 0.5%. Fifty-two of the 70 cases (74%) were error-free; of seeds in the remaining cases, 96.7 +/- 0.3% were found to be attributed to the correct strand and 97.0 +/-0.3% were correctly connected to their neighbors. Any necessary manual correction using the interface is usually straightforward. For the clinical data set tested, neither the number of seeds or needles, average density, nor the presence of clusters was found to have an effect on reconstruction accuracy using this method. CONCLUSIONS: Routine plan reconstruction of stranded implants can be performed with a high degree of accuracy to support postimplant dosimetry and quality analyses.
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".