A study on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiation treatment planning of intracranial lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to develop a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based treatment planning procedure for intracranial lesions. The method relies on (a) distortion correction of raw magnetic resonance (MR) images by using an adaptive thresholding and iterative technique, (b) autosegmentation of head structures relevant to dosimetric calculations (scalp, bone and brain) using an atlas-based software and (c) conversion of MR images into computed tomography (CT)-like images by assigning bulk CT values to organ contours and dose calculations performed in Eclipse (Philips Medical Systems). Standard CT + MRI-based and MRI-only plans were compared by means of isodose distributions, dose volume histograms and several dosimetric parameters. The plans were also ranked by using a tumor control probability (TCP)-based technique for heterogeneous irradiation, which is independent of radiobiological parameters. For our 3 T Intera MRI scanner (Philips Medical Systems), we determined that the total maximum image distortion corresponding to a typical brain study was about 4 mm. The CT + MRI and MRI-only plans were found to be in good agreement for all patients investigated. Following our clinical criteria, the TCP-based ranking tool shows no significant difference between the two types of plans. This indicates that the proposed MRI-based treatment planning procedure is suitable for the radiotherapy of intracranial lesions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".