Validation of non-rigid point-set registration methods using a porcine bladder pelvic phantom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of accurate dose accumulation in fractionated radiotherapy treatment for highly deformable organs, such as bladder, has garnered increasing interest over the past few years. However, more research is required in order to find a robust and efficient solution and to increase the accuracy over the current methods. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of utilizing non-rigid (affine or deformable) point-set registration in accumulating dose in bladder of different sizes and shapes. A pelvic phantom was built to house an ex vivo porcine bladder with fiducial landmarks adhered onto its surface. Four different volume fillings of the bladder were used (90, 180, 360 and 480 cc). The performance of MATLAB implementations of five different methods were compared, in aligning the bladder contour point-sets. The approaches evaluated were coherent point drift (CPD), gaussian mixture model, shape context, thin-plate spline robust point matching (TPS-RPM) and finite iterative closest point (ICP-finite). The evaluation metrics included registration runtime, target registration error (TRE), root-mean-square error (RMS) and Hausdorff distance (HD). The reference (source) dataset was alternated through all four points-sets, in order to study the effect of reference volume on the registration outcomes. While all deformable algorithms provided reasonable registration results, CPD provided the best TRE values (6.4 mm), and TPS-RPM yielded the best mean RMS and HD values (1.4 and 6.8 mm, respectively). ICP-finite was the fastest technique and TPS-RPM, the slowest.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".