Robustness and precision of an automatic marker detection algorithm for online prostate daily targeting using a standard V‐EPID
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An algorithm for the daily localization of the prostate using implanted markers and a standard video-based electronic portal imaging device (V-EPID) has been tested. Prior to planning, three gold markers were implanted in the prostate of seven patients. The clinical images were acquired with a BeamViewPlus 2.1 V-EPID for each field during the normal course radiotherapy treatment and are used off-line to determine the ability of the automatic marker detection algorithm to adequately and consistently detect the markers. Clinical images were obtained with various dose levels from ranging 2.5 to 75 MU. The algorithm is based on marker attenuation characterization in the portal image and spatial distribution. A total of 1182 clinical images were taken. The results show an average efficiency of 93% for the markers detected individually and 85% for the group of markers. This algorithm accomplishes the detection and validation in 0.20-0.40 s. When the center of mass of the group of implanted markers is used, then all displacements can be corrected to within 1.0 mm in 84% of the cases and within 1.5 mm in 97% of cases. The standard video-based EPID tested provides excellent marker detection capability even with low dose levels. The V-EPID can be used successfully with radiopaque markers and the automatic detection algorithm to track and correct the daily setup deviations due to organ motions.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".