Sci—Thur AM: YIS ‐ 11: Estimation of Bladder‐Wall Cumulative Dose in Multi‐Fraction Image‐Based Gynaecological Brachytherapy Using Deformable Point Set Registration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dosimetric parameters based on dose‐volume histograms (DVH) of contoured structures are routinely used to evaluate dose delivered to target structures and organs at risk. However, the DVH provides no information on the spatial distribution of the dose in situations of repeated fractions with changes in organ shape or size. The aim of this research was to develop methods to more accurately determine geometrically localized, cumulative dose to the bladder wall in intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer. The CT scans and treatment plans of 20 cervical cancer patients were used. Each patient was treated with five high‐dose‐rate (HDR) brachytherapy fractions of 600cGy prescribed dose. The bladder inner and outer surfaces were delineated using MIM Maestro software (MIM Software Inc.) and were imported into MATLAB (MathWorks) as 3‐dimensional point clouds constituting the “bladder wall”. A point‐set registration toolbox for MATLAB, Coherent Point Drift (CPD), was used to non‐rigidly transform the bladder‐wall points from four of the fractions to the coordinate system of the remaining (reference) fraction, which was chosen to be the emptiest bladder for each patient. The doses were accumulated on the reference fraction and new cumulative dosimetric parameters were calculated. The LENT‐SOMA toxicity scores of these patients were studied against the cumulative dose parameters. Based on this study, there was no significant correlation between the toxicity scores and the determined cumulative dose parameters.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".