SU‐F‐J‐161: Prostate Contouring in Patients with Bilateral Hip Prostheses: Impact of Using Artifact‐Reduced CT Images and MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the usefulness of metal artifact reduction in CT images of patients with bilateral hip prostheses (BHP) for contouring the prostate and determine if the inclusion of MR images provides additional benefits. Methods: Five patients with BHP were CT scanned using our clinical protocol (140kV, 300mAs, 3mm slices, 1.5mm increment, Philips Medical Systems, OH). Images were reconstructed with the orthopaedic metal artifact reduction (O‐MAR) algorithm. MRI scanning was then performed (1.5T, GE Healthcare, WI) with a flat table‐top (T2‐weighted, inherent body coil, FRFSE, 3mm slices with 0mm gap). All images were transferred to Pinnacle (Version 9.2, Philips Medical Systems). For each patient, two data sets were produced: one containing the O‐MAR‐corrected CT images and another containing fused MRI and O‐MAR‐corrected CT images. Four genito‐urinary radiation oncologists contoured the prostate of each patient on the O‐MAR‐corrected CT data. Two weeks later, they contoured the prostate on the fused data set, blinded to all other contours. During each contouring session, the oncologists reported their confidence in the contours (1=very confident, 3=not confident) and the contouring difficulty that they experienced (1=really easy, 4=very challenging). Prostate volumes were computed from the contours and the conformity index was used to evaluate inter‐observer variability. Results: Larger prostate volumes were found on the O‐MAR‐corrected CT set than on the fused set (p< 0.05, median=36.9cm3 vs. 26.63 cm3). No significant differences were noted in the inter‐observer variability between the two data sets (p=0.3). Contouring difficulty decreased with the addition of MRI (p<0.05) while the radiation oncologists reported more confidence in their contours when MRI was fused with the O‐MAR‐corrected CT data (p<0.05). Conclusion: This preliminary work demonstrated that, while O‐MAR correction to CT images improves visualization of anatomy, the addition of MRI enhanced the oncologists’ confidence in contouring the prostate in patients with BHP.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".