WE‐C‐108‐11: Patient‐Specific Monte Carlo Simulation of Lung Brachytherapy: Metallic Artifact Reduction and Organ‐Constrained Tissue Assignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate techniques for developing accurate patient‐specific computational phantoms for Monte Carlo simulations of lung brachytherapy. Methods to mitigate streaking artifacts due to brachytherapy sources in CT images and organ‐constrained tissue assignment schemes are explored. Methods: Three different metallic artifact reduction (MAR) techniques are applied to lung brachytherapy patient CT data: thresholding replaces high CT values with estimated true values; fan‐beam virtual sinogram replaces artifact‐affected values in a virtual sinogram; and 3D median filter uses local voxel values to guide the replacement of outlying voxel values. Computational phantoms are generated from metallic artifact corrected and uncorrected images with voxel composition defined by CT number and density defined either by nominal tissue density or a CT number to density calibration. Multiple tissue assignment schemes are considered, including some with organ‐specific constraints. Dose distributions for I–125 and Cs‐131 seeds are calculated using the EGSnrc user‐code BrachyDose and are compared directly as well as through DVHs and dose metrics for target volumes surrounding surgical sutures. Results: The most effective MAR technique is the virtual sinogram method as it effectively mitigates artifacts while maintaining image integrity. Thresholding only removes artifacts in the vicinity of sources (leaving artifacts in other regions) and median filtering degrades tissue heterogeneities. Dose distributions for phantoms treated with various MAR techniques and tissue assignment schemes can vary significantly. Dose differences between MAR and uncorrected phantoms are reduced by constraining tissue assignments in lung contours; in one example, differences in D90 of 20% are reduced to 3%. Phantoms with nominal densities Result in higher doses than those with CT derived densities. Conclusion: Application of MAR techniques to CT data is necessary to develop realistic computational phantoms for Monte Carlo simulations; the virtual sinogram method is a promising image‐based technique. Organ‐constrained tissue assignment is necessary for accurate tissue assignment. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Canada Research Chairs program, and an Ontario Graduate Scholarship.
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".