The effect of an inconsistent breathing amplitude on the relationship between an external marker and internal lung deformation in a porcine model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Investigate the relationship between the motion of the Varian Real-time Position Management (RPM) device and the internal motion of a pig during induced inconsistencies in the amplitude of breathing. METHODS: Twelve studies were performed on four ventilated female Landrace cross pigs using a GE Healthcare, Discovery CT 750 HD scanner. In each study, a 4.0 cm section (64 slices) of the pig's lungs was repeatedly scanned 20 times using cine mode, each time lasting more than one breathing cycle. During these cine scans, a Varian RPM device was used to collect respiratory amplitudes and the ventilator air return tube was periodically crimped to induce inconsistent breathing amplitudes. Each breathing cycle and its associated cine scan were categorized as either consistent or inconsistent, based on thresholds of the minimum expiration and maximum inspiration amplitudes. From the group of consistent amplitude cine scans in a study, a reference scan was chosen. The effect of inconsistent breathing amplitudes on the relationship between the motion of the RPM marker and the motion within three regions of interest (in each lung and the chest wall) was investigated with two methods: (1) A 4D-CT sorting algorithm based on RPM amplitude was used to sort volumes into 4D-CT phase bins. Within each phase bin, the nonlinear deformation of volumes collected during consistent and inconsistent breathing amplitude was calculated with respect to the reference volume. The magnitude of the deformations (in mm) were compared to determine if inconsistent breathing amplitude caused greater deformations. (2) Nonlinear deformations between each CT volume from a cine scan and the maximum expiration volume of the reference scan were calculated. Regression analyses between the nonlinear deformations within three regions of interest (in each lung and the chest wall) and the RPM amplitudes were performed to test the effect of inconsistent breathing amplitudes on the linearity of the relationship between the 3D motion of internal anatomy and the 1D motion of the RPM external marker. RESULTS: (1) Inconsistent versus consistent breathing amplitudes caused a significant increase in deformation relative to the reference scan within the left lung (1.40 +/- 0.42 versus 1.29 +/- 0.36 mm, p < 0.05). (2) One-to-one correspondences between motions of internal anatomies and motion of the RPM external marker did not exist. The regression lines between the two types of motions did not yield an identity relationship (unity slope and zero intercept). Inconsistent breathing produced significantly different regression lines than consistent breathing in ten of the 12 studies within a left lung region of interest. CONCLUSIONS: The results of these two studies indicate that inconsistency in the amplitude of breathing disrupted the correspondence between the motion of the external marker and internal anatomies. As a consequence, radiation therapy of tumors embedded in lung tissue may be prone to significant errors if inconsistent breathing amplitudes occur during 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".