MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086622001 · doi:10.1118/1.3147143

Skeletal dosimetry in cone beam computed tomography

2009· article· en· W2086622001 on OpenAlexaff
B. R. B. Walters, G Ding, R Krämer, I. Kawrakow

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCone beam computed tomographyImaging phantomVoxelDosimetryNuclear medicineImage-guided radiation therapyMedicineRadiation treatment planningMedical imagingRadiation therapyComputed tomographyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is a relatively new patient imaging technique that has proved invaluable for treatment target verification and patient positioning during image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). It has been shown that CBCT results in additional dose to bone that may amount to 10% of the prescribed dose. In this study, voxelized human phantoms, FAX06 (adult female) and MAX06 (adult male), are used together with phase-space data collected from a realistic model of a CBCT imager to calculate dose in the red bone marrow (RBM) and bone surface cells (BSCs), the two organs at risk within the bone spongiosa, during simulated head and neck, chest and pelvis CBCT scans. The FAX06/MAX06 phantoms model spongiosa based on micro-CT images, filling the relevant phantom voxels, which are 0.12 x 0.12 x 0.12 cm3, with 17 x 17 x 17 microm3 microvoxels to form a micromatrix of trabecular bone and bone marrow. FAX06/ MAX06 have already been implemented in an EGSnrc-based Monte Carlo code to simulate radiation transport in the phantoms; however, this study required significant modifications of the code to allow use of phase-space data from a simulated CBCT imager as a source and to allow scoring of total dose, RBM dose and BSC dose on a voxel-by-voxel basis. In simulated CBCT scans, the BSC dose is significantly greater than the dose to other organs at risk. For example, in a simulated head and neck scan, the average BSC dose is 25% higher than the average dose to eye lens (approximately 8.3 cGy), and 80% greater than the average dose to brain (5.7 cGy). Average dose to RBM, on the other hand, is typically only approximately 50% of the average BSC dose and less than the dose to other organs at risk (54% of the dose to eye lens and 76% of dose to brain in a head and neck scan). Thus, elevated dose in bone due to CBCT results in elevated BSC dose. This is potentially of concern when using CBCT in conjunction with radiotherapy treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations34
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207