MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2028479339 · doi:10.1118/1.3181216

SU‐FF‐I‐96: Motion Adaptation for Registering Daily Online CBCT Images to Planning CT Images

2009· article· en· W2028479339 on OpenAlexaffabout
T. N. Nguyen, Joanne Moseley, Laura A. Dawson, David A. Jaffray, K. Brock

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage-guided radiation therapyNuclear medicineImage registrationMotion (physics)MedicineDisplacement (psychology)Medical imagingComputer scienceComputer visionRadiologyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Perform online image guidance (IGRT) and motion assessment using deformable registration by adapting patient liver motion models. Materials and Methods: 4DCT and daily 4DCBCT images were obtained for 15 patients treated under a stereotactic‐body radiotherapy protocol. Finite element models of patient liver respiratory motion were generated using a biomechanical‐model based platform, MORFEUS from 4DCT images. Motion was assessed using a Navigator channels (NC) technique. Five NCs, rectangular regions of interest, were placed on two images at corresponding spatial locations to define left (LR), anterior‐posterior (AP), and superior‐inferior (SI) liver edges. To determine interfraction liver/tumour positioning, the 4DCT exhale and daily 4DCBCT exhale images were used, while intrafraction liver/ tumour motion used exhale and inhale 4DCBCT images. The NC determines the 1D displacement between both images. This 1D motion adapts the MORFEUS‐based liver motion model. NC adaptation accuracy was evaluated by comparing the results with MORFEUS registration. Results: NC refinement has been performed on 8 patients to date in less than 2 mins each. Inter‐fraction motion of the liver exceeded 1 cm. Inter‐fraction NC technique accuracy (absolute mean (SD)) was 0.15 (0.11), 0.16 (0.10), and 0.15 (0.09) cm, in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. Intra‐fraction motion exceeded 1.5cm. NC technique accuracy was 0.14 (0.10), 0.15 (0.08), and 0.18 (0.09) cm, in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. The accuracy of the NC technique to identify the center of mass shift of the tumour for intra‐fraction motion was 0.16 (0.15), 0.14 (0.12), and 0.15 (0.10) cm, in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. Conclusion: NC adaptation technique can accurately and efficiently integrate deformable registration into the IGRT process to account for inter and intra‐fraction motion. Research sponsored by the National Cancer Institute of Canada‐Terry Fox Foundation, Elekta Oncology Systems, and NIH 5RO1CA124714‐02.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→