MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088274237 · doi:10.1118/1.4888065

SU‐E‐J‐14: A Novel Approach to Evaluate the Dosimetric Effect of Rectal Variation During Image Guided Prostate Radiotherapy

2014· article· en· W2088274237 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Murray, Dualta Mcquaid, Alex Dunlop, Florian Buettner, Simeon Nill, Emma Hall, David P. Dearnaley, S. Gulliford

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRectumImage-guided radiation therapyFiducial markerNuclear medicineDosimetryRadiation therapyMedicineMedical imagingProstateRadiation treatment planningRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Deformable registration establishes the spatial correspondence back to the reference image in order to accumulate dose. However, in prostate radiotherapy the changing shape and volume of the rectum present a challenge to accurate deformable registration and consequently calculation of delivered dose. We explored an alternative approach to calculating accumulated dose to the rectum, independent of deformable registration. Methods: This study was performed on three patients who received online image‐guided radiotherapy (IGRT) with daily CBCT (XVI‐system,Elekta) and target localization using intraprostatic fiducials. On each CBCT, the rectum was manually contoured and bulk density assignments were made allowing dose to be calculated for each fraction. Dose‐surface maps (DSM) were generated (MATLAB,Mathworks,Natick,MA) by considering the rectum as a cylinder and sampling the dose at 21‐equispaced points on each CT slice. The cylinder was “cut” at the posterior‐most position on each CT and unfolded to generate a DSM. These were normalised in the longitudinal direction by interpolation creating maps of 21×21 pixels. A DSM was produced for each CBCT and the dose was accumulated. Results: The mean accumulated delivered rectal surface dose was on average 7.5(+/−3.5)% lower than the planned dose. The dose difference maps consistently show that the greatest variation in dose between planned and delivered dose is away from where the rectal surface is adjacent to the prostate. Conclusion: Estimation of dose accumulation using DSM provides an alternative method for determining actual delivered dose to the rectum. The dose difference is greatest in areas away from the region where the rectal surface abuts the prostate, the region where set‐up is verified. The change in size and shape of the rectum was shown to resultin a change in the accumulated dose compared to the planned dose and this will have an impact on determining the relationships between dose delivered and toxicity. We acknowledge funding from CRUK and acknowledge NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Cancer. Patients were treated within the CHHiP IGRT sub‐study (CRUK/06/016, ISRCTN:97182923) funded by CRUK. RayStation was used under an evaluation agreement with RaySearch Laboratories AB.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207