Use of a real-time three-dimensional motion tracking system for measurement of intrafractional motion of the thoracic wall in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure respiratory motion of the thoracic wall region in dogs using a real-time motion tracking system and compare the amount of respiratory motion between dogs positioned with and without a vacuum-formable cushion. ANIMALS: 8 healthy adult mixed-breed dogs (median weight, 23 kg). PROCEDURES: Dogs were anesthetized and positioned in sternal and dorsal recumbency with and without a vacuum-formable cushion. Three-dimensional movement of anatomic landmarks was measured with a real-time motion capture system that tracked the locations of infrared light-emitting diodes attached externally to the dorsal or ventral and lateral aspects of the thoracic wall. RESULTS: Dogs positioned in sternal recumbency had significantly less cranial-to-caudal and left-to-right respiratory motion at the lateral aspect of the thoracic wall, compared with dogs positioned in dorsal recumbency, whether or not a cushion was used. For dogs treated in sternal recumbency, use of a cushion significantly increased the peak displacement vector (overall movement in 3-D space) for 3 of 4 marker locations on the dorsal thoracic wall. As respiratory rate increased, respiratory motion at the lateral and ventral aspects of the thoracic wall decreased when data for all dogs in dorsal recumbency were evaluated together. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Associations between respiratory rate and respiratory motion suggested that the use of rapid, shallow ventilation may be beneficial for dogs undergoing highly conformal radiation treatment. These results provide a basis for further research on respiratory motion in anesthetized dogs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".