Analysis of patient repositioning accuracy in precision radiation therapy using automated image fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work describes a rapid and objective method of determining repositioning error during the course of precision radiation therapy using off-line CT imaging and automated mutual-information image fusion. The technique eliminates the variability associated with manual identification of anatomical landmarks by observers. A phantom study was conducted to quantify the accuracy of the image co-registration-based analysis itself. For CT voxel dimensions of 0.65 x 0.65 x1.0 mm3, the method is shown to detect translations with an accuracy of 0.5 mm in the anterior-posterior and lateral dimensions and 0.8 mm in the superior-inferior dimension. Phantom rotation in the coronal plane was detected to within 0.5 degrees of expected values. The analysis has been applied to eight radiotherapy patients at two independent clinics, each immobilized by the same system for cranial stereotactic radiotherapy and CT-imaged once per week over the five- to six-week course of treatment. Among all patients, the ranges of translation in the anterior-posterior, lateral, and superior-inferior dimensions were -0.91 mm to 0.77 mm, -0.66 mm to 1.02 mm, and -2.24 mm to 3.47 mm, respectively. Considering all patients and CT scans, the standard deviations of translation were 0.42 mm, 0.47 mm, and 1.36 mm in the anterior-posterior, lateral, and superior-inferior dimensions, respectively. The ranges of patient rotation about the superior-inferior, left-right, and anterior-posterior axes were -2.84 to 2.62 degrees, -1.74 degrees to 1.96 degrees, and -1.78 degrees to 1.42 degrees, respectively.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".