MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078486665 · doi:10.1118/1.3446800

Automatic image guidance for prostate IMRT using low dose CBCT

2010· article· en· W2078486665 on OpenAlexaff
Marcin Wierzbicki, B Schaly, Terry M. Peters, Rob Barnett

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsGrand River HospitalWestern UniversityJuravinski Cancer Centre
FundersCummings Foundation
KeywordsImage-guided radiation therapyImaging phantomCone beam computed tomographyMedicineMedical imagingRadiation treatment planningNuclear medicineImage registrationDosimetryComputer scienceMedical physicsRadiation therapyComputer visionArtificial intelligenceRadiologyComputed tomographyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Varian's On-Board Imager is a linac-integrated cone-beam CT (CBCT) system used at the authors' institution to acquire images prior to delivering each fraction of prostate intensity modulated radiotherapy. The images are used to determine a couch shift that realigns the tumor with the position obtained in the planning CT. However, this manual image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) technique is operator dependent, time consuming, offers limited degrees of freedom, and requires significant imaging dose over the course of treatment. To overcome these problems, the authors propose two fully automatic IGRT techniques that require significantly less imaging dose. METHODS: Dose is reduced by lowering the x-ray tube mA s during CBCT acquisition at the cost of increasing image noise. In "forward" IGRT, the CBCT image is automatically registered to the planning CT to obtain the necessary couch shift. The "reverse" technique offers additional degrees of freedom as it involves nonrigid registration of the planning CT to the CBCT. Both techniques were evaluated using images of an anthropomorphic phantom with simulated motion and by retrospectively analyzing data from ten prostate cancer patients. RESULTS: IGRT error for the phantom data at 100% relative imaging dose was 8.2 +/- 3.7, 3.5 +/- 1.2,, and 2.1 +/- 0.6 mm for setup only, forward, and reverse techniques, respectively. For patient images acquired at 100% relative imaging dose, the errors were 5.4 +/- 1.7, 5.0 +/- 1.6, 5.0 +/- 2.0, and 4.0 +/- 1.6 mm for setup only, manual forward (performed clinically), automatic forward, and reverse IGRT, respectively. Furthermore, imaging dose could be reduced to 20% without a significant loss in image guidance accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The presented image guidance methods are accurate while requiring only 20% of the standard imaging dose. The combination of low dose, automation, and accuracy enables frequent corrections during treatment, possibly leading to reduced margins and improved treatment outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207