2D‐3D registration for prostate radiation therapy based on a statistical model of transmission images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In external beam radiation therapy of pelvic sites, patient setup errors can be quantified by registering 2D projection radiographs acquired during treatment to a 3D planning computed tomograph (CT). We present a 2D-3D registration framework based on a statistical model of the intensity values in the two imaging modalities. METHODS: The model assumes that intensity values in projection radiographs are independently but not identically distributed due to the nonstationary nature of photon counting noise. Two probability distributions are considered for the intensity values: Poisson and Gaussian. Using maximum likelihood estimation, two similarity measures, maximum likelihood with a Poisson (MLP) and maximum likelihood with Gaussian (MLG), distribution are derived. Further, we investigate the merit of the model-based registration approach for data obtained with current imaging equipment and doses by comparing the performance of the similarity measures derived to that of the Pearson correlation coefficient (ICC) on accurately collected data of an anthropomorphic phantom of the pelvis and on patient data. RESULTS: Registration accuracy was similar for all three similarity measures and surpassed current clinical requirements of 3 mm for pelvic sites. For pose determination experiments with a kilovoltage (kV) cone-beam CT (CBCT) and kV projection radiographs of the phantom in the anterior-posterior (AP) view, registration accuracies were 0.42 mm (MLP), 0.29 mm (MLG), and 0.29 mm (ICC). For kV CBCT and megavoltage (MV) AP portal images of the same phantom, registration accuracies were 1.15 mm (MLP), 0.90 mm (MLG), and 0.69 mm (ICC). Registration of a kV CT and MV AP portal images of a patient was successful in all instances. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that high registration accuracy is achievable with multiple methods including methods that are based on a statistical model of a 3D CT and 2D projection images.
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".