Semiautomatic segmentation for prostate brachytherapy: Dosimetric evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To demonstrate that manual prostate segmentation in transrectal ultrasound images can be replaced with semiautomatic segmentation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Semiautomatic segmentation using a tapered ellipsoid model was applied to transrectal ultrasound images. Region-based volumetric evaluation was performed between original and physician-reviewed semiautomatic contours. For dosimetric assessment, treatment plans generated on semiautomatic contours were overlaid on physician-reviewed semiautomatic contours and dose parameters were computed. To establish a threshold for the acceptable amount of dosimetric degradation below which the adoption of semiautomatic planning is unacceptable, the range of variability in dosimetric quality attributed to manual variability was obtained and compared with that of semiautomatic contours. RESULTS: An average volume error (1-Dice similarity coefficient) of less than 7% between semiautomatic and manual volumes (140 cases) was obtained. The difference between the mean V(100) of plans created for semiautomatic contours then overlaid on physician-reviewed semiautomatic contours and the original V(100) values, that is, before overlaying on the physician-reviewed contours (41 cases) was lower than 5%. An average total duration of 2-4min, which includes algorithm initialization, 11.67±3.57s algorithm time, and contour modification is required per case. This algorithm is being used at the British Columbia Cancer Agency and to this date has been applied for the treatment of more than 600 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of volumetric and dosimetric accuracy, the proposed algorithm is a suitable replacement for manual segmentation in the context of our planning technique. The benefits are shorter segmentation times; greater consistency; less reliance on user experience; and smooth, symmetric contours.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".