Complexity and accuracy of image registration methods in SPECT-guided radiation therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of functional imaging in radiotherapy treatment (RT) planning requires accurate co-registration of functional imaging scans to CT scans. We evaluated six methods of image registration for use in SPECT-guided radiotherapy treatment planning. Methods varied in complexity from 3D affine transform based on control points to diffeomorphic demons and level set non-rigid registration. Ten lung cancer patients underwent perfusion SPECT-scans prior to their radiotherapy. CT images from a hybrid SPECT/CT scanner were registered to a planning CT, and then the same transformation was applied to the SPECT images. According to registration evaluation measures computed based on the intensity difference between the registered CT images or based on target registration error, non-rigid registrations provided a higher degree of accuracy than rigid methods. However, due to the irregularities in some of the obtained deformation fields, warping the SPECT using these fields may result in unacceptable changes to the SPECT intensity distribution that would preclude use in RT planning. Moreover, the differences between intensity histograms in the original and registered SPECT image sets were the largest for diffeomorphic demons and level set methods. In conclusion, the use of intensity-based validation measures alone is not sufficient for SPECT/CT registration for RTTP. It was also found that the proper evaluation of image registration requires the use of several accuracy metrics.
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 | 0.017 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".