MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2090924855 · doi:10.1118/1.4815277

MO‐F‐108‐01: Deformable Dose Reconstruction to Evaluate Image‐Guidance Strategies in Free‐Breathing Liver SBRT

2013· article· en· W2090924855 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Velec, Laura A. Dawson, Kristy K. Brock

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNuclear medicineBreathingCone beam computed tomographyCone beam ctImage registrationLiver tumorRadiation therapyRadiologyComputed tomographyHepatocellular carcinomaInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To evaluate the delivered dose following image‐guidance strategies for liver SBRT. Methods: The delivered dose was reconstructed using deformable image‐registration (DIR) on the retrospectively sorted (4D) cone‐beam CT (CBCT) for 30 SBRT patients (15 with multiple tumors). Plans created on exhale 4D‐CT, for 27–60 Gy/6 fractions, were delivered in free‐breathing after 3D‐CBCT rigid liver alignment. Dose was also reconstructed after simulating two rigid alignment strategies on the exhale 4D‐CBCT: the liver or the tumor directly (using DIR to predict tumor position). Delivered doses were compared to the planned 4D breathing dose, modeled with DIR of 4D‐CT. Results: Residual mean tumor errors >3 mm occurred in nine patients (30%) following free‐breathing 3D‐CBCT (max: 10 mm), and two patients (6.6%) following liver or tumor 4D‐CBCT alignment (maximum: 3.3 mm). With free‐breathing 3D‐CBCT, the delivered minimum tumor doses decreased by more than 1 Gy compared to planned dose for 4 (13%) patients. For 2 of these 4 patients, aligning the liver or tumor on 4D‐CBCT reduced the dose decreases from −1.4 Gy, to within −0.5 Gy. The other 2 patients had multiple tumors and substantial liver deformation, resulting in minimum tumor doses decreases (max: −4.3 Gy) following free‐breathing 3D‐CBCT, that were reduced with either liver (max: −2.7 Gy) or tumor (max: −2.2 Gy) 4D‐CBCT alignment. For normal gastrointestinal tissues receiving >30 Gy, the delivered maximum doses deviated by −11.5 to 2.6 Gy, with one exceeding the planning constraint by 0.7 Gy following free‐breathing 3D‐CBCT. Aligning the liver or tumor on 4D CBCT reduced normal tissue deviations (range: −6.3, 2.7 Gy) without exceeding planning constraints. Conclusion: 4D‐CBCT guidance for liver SBRT has been clinically implemented. The improved correlation between the 4D planning dose and delivered dose can be largely accomplished with 4D alignment of the liver, and should allow for planning margin reduction. This research is supported by the NIH, 5RO1CA124714‐02, and a Canadian Institutes for Health Research Fellowship. Patient data was acquired during clinical trials supported by the National Cancer Institute of Canada, #18207, and CIHR, #202477. K.K. Brock has financial interest in the deformable registration technology through a licensing agreement with RaySearch Laboratories.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→