A proposed framework for consensus-based lung tumour volume auto-segmentation in 4D computed tomography imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work aims to propose and validate a framework for tumour volume auto-segmentation based on ground-truth estimates derived from multi-physician input contours to expedite 4D-CT based lung tumour volume delineation. 4D-CT datasets of ten non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were manually segmented by 6 physicians. Multi-expert ground truth (GT) estimates were constructed using the STAPLE algorithm for the gross tumour volume (GTV) on all respiratory phases. Next, using a deformable model-based method, multi-expert GT on each individual phase of the 4D-CT dataset was propagated to all other phases providing auto-segmented GTVs and motion encompassing internal gross target volumes (IGTVs) based on GT estimates (STAPLE) from each respiratory phase of the 4D-CT dataset. Accuracy assessment of auto-segmentation employed graph cuts for 3D-shape reconstruction and point-set registration-based analysis yielding volumetric and distance-based measures. STAPLE-based auto-segmented GTV accuracy ranged from (81.51 ± 1.92) to (97.27 ± 0.28)% volumetric overlap of the estimated ground truth. IGTV auto-segmentation showed significantly improved accuracies with reduced variance for all patients ranging from 90.87 to 98.57% volumetric overlap of the ground truth volume. Additional metrics supported these observations with statistical significance. Accuracy of auto-segmentation was shown to be largely independent of selection of the initial propagation phase. IGTV construction based on auto-segmented GTVs within the 4D-CT dataset provided accurate and reliable target volumes compared to manual segmentation-based GT estimates. While inter-/intra-observer effects were largely mitigated, the proposed segmentation workflow is more complex than that of current clinical practice and requires further development.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".