MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030527204 · doi:10.1118/1.4729737

Model-based dose calculations for<sup>125</sup>I lung brachytherapy

2012· article· en· W2030527204 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBrachytherapyDosimetryNuclear medicineMedical physicsMedical imagingPhysicsMedicineRadiation therapyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Model-baseddose calculations (MBDCs) are performed using patient computed tomography (CT) data for patients treated with intraoperative (125)I lung brachytherapy at the Mayo Clinic Rochester. Various metallic artifact correction and tissue assignment schemes are considered and their effects on dose distributions are studied. Dose distributions are compared to those calculated under TG-43 assumptions. METHODS: Dose distributions for six patients are calculated using phantoms derived from patient CT data and the EGSnrc user-code BrachyDose. (125)I (GE Healthcare/Oncura model 6711) seeds are fully modeled. Four metallic artifact correction schemes are applied to the CT data phantoms: (1) no correction, (2) a filtered back-projection on a modified virtual sinogram, (3) the reassignment of CT numbers above a threshold in the vicinity of the seeds, and (4) a combination of (2) and (3). Tissue assignment is based on voxel CT number and mass density is assigned using a CT number to mass density calibration. Three tissue assignment schemes with varying levels of detail (20, 11, and 5 tissues) are applied to metallic artifact corrected phantoms. Simulations are also performed under TG-43 assumptions, i.e., seeds in homogeneous water with no interseed attenuation. RESULTS: Significant dose differences (up to 40% for D(90)) are observed between uncorrected and metallic artifact corrected phantoms. For phantoms created with metallic artifact correction schemes (3) and (4), dose volume metrics are generally in good agreement (less than 2% differences for all patients) although there are significant local dose differences. The application of the three tissue assignment schemes results in differences of up to 8% for D(90); these differences vary between patients. Significant dose differences are seen between fully modeled and TG-43 calculations with TG-43 underestimating the dose (up to 36% in D(90)) for larger volumes containing higher proportions of healthy lung tissue. CONCLUSIONS: Metallic artifact correction is necessary for accurate application of MBDCs for lung brachytherapy; simpler threshold replacement methods may be sufficient for early adopters concerned with clinical dose metrics. Rigorous determination of voxel tissue parameters and tissue assignment is required for accurate dose calculations as different tissue assignment schemes can result in significantly different dose distributions. Significant differences are seen between MBDCs and TG-43 dose distributions with TG-43 underestimating dose in volumes containing healthy lung tissue.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.261 · 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