An augmented parametric response map with consideration of image registration error: towards guidance of locally adaptive radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parametric response map (PRM) analysis is a voxel-wise technique for predicting overall treatment outcome, which shows promise as a tool for guiding personalized locally adaptive radiotherapy (RT). However, image registration error (IRE) introduces uncertainty into this analysis which may limit its use for guiding RT. Here we extend the PRM method to include an IRE-related PRM analysis confidence interval and also incorporate multiple graded classification thresholds to facilitate visualization. A Gaussian IRE model was used to compute an expected value and confidence interval for PRM analysis. The augmented PRM (A-PRM) was evaluated using CT-perfusion functional image data from patients treated with RT for glioma and hepatocellular carcinoma. Known rigid IREs were simulated by applying one thousand different rigid transformations to each image set. PRM and A-PRM analyses of the transformed images were then compared to analyses of the original images (ground truth) in order to investigate the two methods in the presence of controlled IRE. The A-PRM was shown to help visualize and quantify IRE-related analysis uncertainty. The use of multiple graded classification thresholds also provided additional contextual information which could be useful for visually identifying adaptive RT targets (e.g. sub-volume boosts). The A-PRM should facilitate reliable PRM guided adaptive RT by allowing the user to identify if a patient's unique IRE-related PRM analysis uncertainty has the potential to influence target delineation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".