MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023986164 · doi:10.1118/1.4764481

Characterization of tissue magnetic susceptibility‐induced distortions for MRIgRT

2012· article· en· W2023986164 on OpenAlex
T. Stanescu, Keith Wachowicz, David A. Jaffray

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomContext (archaeology)MagnetostaticsMagnetic susceptibilityScannerOrientation (vector space)Distortion (music)PhysicsMagnetic fieldQuantitative susceptibility mappingMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear magnetic resonanceComputational physicsGeometryMathematicsOpticsRadiologyMedicineCondensed matter physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: MR image geometric integrity is one of the building blocks of MRI-guided radiotherapy. In particular, tissue magnetic susceptibility-induced effects are patient-dependent and their behavior is difficult to assess and predict. In this study, the authors investigated in detail the characteristics of susceptibility (χ) distortions in the context of MRIgRT, including the case of two common MR-linac system configurations. METHODS: The magnetic field distortions were numerically simulated for several imaging parameters and anatomical sites, i.e., brain, lung, pelvis (with air pockets), and prostate. The simulation process consisted of (a) segmentation of patient CT data into susceptibility relevant anatomical volumes (i.e., soft-tissue, bone and air∕lung), (b) conversion of CT data into susceptibility masks by assigning bulk χ values to the structures defined at (a), (c) numerical computations of the local magnetic fields by using a finite difference algorithm, and (d) generation of the geometric distortion maps from the magnetic field distributions. For each patient anatomy, the distortions were quantified at the interfaces of anatomical structures with significantly different χ values. The analysis was performed for two specific orientations of the external main magnetic field (B(0)) characteristic to the MR-linac systems, specifically along the z-axis for a bore MR scanner and in the (x,y)-plane for a biplanner magnet. The magnetic field local perturbations were reported in ppm. The metrics used to quantify the geometric distortions were the maximum, mean, and range of distortions. The numerical simulation algorithm was validated using phantom data measurements. RESULTS: Susceptibility-induced distortions were determined for both quadratic and patient specific geometries. The numerical simulations showed a good agreement with the experimental data. The measurements were acquired at 1.5 and 3 T and with an encoding gradient varying between 3 and 20 mT∕m by using an annular phantom mimicking the water-air and water-oil χ interfaces. For quadratic geometries, the magnitude of field distortion increased rapidly with the size of the inhomogeneity up to about 10 mm and then tended to plateau. This trend became more evident for materials with a larger Δχ relative to water. The simulations showed only a slight increase in the maximum distortion values when the B(0) orientation was varied with regard to the shape of the χ inhomogeneity. In the case of patient anatomy, the largest distortion values arose at the air-soft-tissue interface. Considering the two MR-linac system configurations and comparing the field distortion values corresponding to all organ structures, the distortions tended to be larger for the biplanar magnet. The authors provide a reference table with ppm values which can be used to easily evaluate the geometric distortions for patient data as a function of B(0) and the strength of the encoding gradient. CONCLUSIONS: The susceptibility distortions were quantified as a function of multiple parameters such as the χ inhomogeneity size and shape, the magnitude of B(0) and the readout gradient, and the orientation of B(0) with respect to the sample geometry. The analysis was performed for several anatomical sites and corresponding to two B(0) orientations as featured by MR-linac systems.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.286 · 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