Applying an animal model to quantify the uncertainties of an image-based 4D-CT algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to use an animal model to quantify the spatial displacement uncertainties and test the fundamental assumptions of an image-based 4D-CT algorithm in vivo. Six female Landrace cross pigs were ventilated and imaged using a 64-slice CT scanner (GE Healthcare) operating in axial cine mode. The breathing amplitude pattern of the pigs was varied by periodically crimping the ventilator gas return tube during the image acquisition. The image data were used to determine the displacement uncertainties that result from matching CT images at the same respiratory phase using normalized cross correlation (NCC) as the matching criteria. Additionally, the ability to match the respiratory phase of a 4.0 cm subvolume of the thorax to a reference subvolume using only a single overlapping 2D slice from the two subvolumes was tested by varying the location of the overlapping matching image within the subvolume and examining the effect this had on the displacement relative to the reference volume. The displacement uncertainty resulting from matching two respiratory images using NCC ranged from 0.54 ± 0.10 mm per match to 0.32 ± 0.16 mm per match in the lung of the animal. The uncertainty was found to propagate in quadrature, increasing with number of NCC matches performed. In comparison, the minimum displacement achievable if two respiratory images were matched perfectly in phase ranged from 0.77 ± 0.06 to 0.93 ± 0.06 mm in the lung. The assumption that subvolumes from separate cine scan could be matched by matching a single overlapping 2D image between to subvolumes was validated. An in vivo animal model was developed to test an image-based 4D-CT algorithm. The uncertainties associated with using NCC to match the respiratory phase of two images were quantified and the assumption that a 4.0 cm 3D subvolume can by matched in respiratory phase by matching a single 2D image from the 3D subvolume was validated. The work in this paper shows the image-based 4D-CT algorithm to be a promising method for producing 4D-CT images for radiotherapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".