Deformable image registration of heterogeneous human lung incorporating the bronchial tree
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of the bronchial tree on the accuracy of biomechanical-based deformable image registration of human lungs. METHODS: Three dimensional finite element models have been developed using four dimensional computed tomography image data of ten lung cancer patients. Each model is built of a body, left and right lungs, tumor, and bronchial trees. Triangular shell elements are used for the bronchial trees while tetrahedral elements are used for other components. Hyperelastic material properties based on experimental investigation on human lungs are used for the lung parenchyma. Different material properties are assigned for the bronchial tree using five values for the modulus of elasticity of 0.01, 0.12, 0.5, 10, and 18 MPa. Lungs are modeled to slide inside chest cavities by applying frictionless contact surfaces between each lung and corresponding chest cavity. The accuracy of the models is examined using an average of 40 bronchial bifurcation points identified on inhale and exhale images. Relative accuracy is evaluated by comparing the displacement of all nodes within the lungs as well as the dosimetric difference at the exhale position predicted by the model. RESULTS: There is no significant effect of bronchial tree on the model accuracy based on the bifurcation points analysis. However, on the local level, using an average of 38 000 nodes, there is a maximum difference of 8.5 mm in the deformation of the bronchial trees, as the modulus of elasticity of the bronchial trees increases from 0.01 to 18 MPa; however, more than 96% of nodes are within a 2.5 mm difference in each direction. The average dose difference at the predicted exhale position is less than 35 cGy between the models. CONCLUSIONS: The bronchial tree has little effect on the global deformation and the accuracy of deformable image registration of lungs. Hence, the homogenous model is a reasonable assumption. Since there are some local deformation differences between nodes as the material properties of the bronchial tree change that may affect the accuracy of dosimetric results, heterogeneity may be required for a smaller scale modeling of lungs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".