3D interfractional patient position verification using 2D‐3D registration of orthogonal images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproducible positioning of the patient during fractionated external beam radiation therapy is imperative to ensure that the delivered dose distribution matches the planned one. In this paper, we expand on a 2D-3D image registration method to verify a patient's setup in three dimensions (rotations and translations) using orthogonal portal images and megavoltage digitally reconstructed radiographs (MDRRs) derived from CT data. The accuracy of 2D-3D registration was improved by employing additional image preprocessing steps and a parabolic fit to interpolate the parameter space of the cost function utilized for registration. Using a humanoid phantom, precision for registration of three-dimensional translations was found to be better than 0.5 mm (1 s.d.) for any axis when no rotations were present. Three-dimensional rotations about any axis were registered with a precision of better than 0.2 degrees (1 s.d.) when no translations were present. Combined rotations and translations of up to 4 degrees and 15 mm were registered with 0.4 degrees and 0.7 mm accuracy for each axis. The influence of setup translations on registration of rotations and vice versa was also investigated and mostly agrees with a simple geometric model. Additionally, the dependence of registration accuracy on three cost functions, angular spacing between MDRRs, pixel size, and field-of-view, was examined. Best results were achieved by mutual information using 0.5 degrees angular spacing and a 10 x 10 cm2 field-of-view with 140 x 140 pixels. Approximating patient motion as rigid transformation, the registration method is applied to two treatment plans and the patients' setup errors are determined. Their magnitude was found to be < or = 6.1 mm and < or = 2.7 degrees for any axis in all of the six fractions measured for each treatment plan.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".