Effects of voxelization on dose volume histogram accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In radiotherapy treatment planning systems, structures of interest such as targets and organs at risk are stored as 2D contours on evenly spaced planes. In order to be used in various algorithms, contours must be converted into binary labelmap volumes using voxelization. The voxelization process results in lost information, which has little effect on the volume of large structures, but has significant impact on small structures, which contain few voxels. Volume differences for segmented structures affects metrics such as dose volume histograms (DVH), which are used for treatment planning. Our goal is to evaluate the impact of voxelization on segmented structures, as well as how factors like voxel size affects metrics, such as DVH. METHODS: We create a series of implicit functions, which represent simulated structures. These structures are sampled at varying resolutions, and compared to labelmaps with high sub-millimeter resolutions. We generate DVH and evaluate voxelization error for the same structures at different resolutions by calculating the agreement acceptance percentage between the DVH. RESULTS: We implemented tools for analysis as modules in the SlicerRT toolkit based on the 3D Slicer platform. We found that there were large DVH variation from the baseline for small structures or for structures located in regions with a high dose gradient, potentially leading to the creation of suboptimal treatment plans. CONCLUSION: This work demonstrates that labelmap and dose volume voxel size is an important factor in DVH accuracy, which must be accounted for in order to ensure the development of accurate treatment plans.
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 | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".