SU‐F‐J‐195: On the Performance of Four Dual Energy CT Formalisms for Extracting Proton Stopping Powers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Dual energy CT can predict stopping power ratios (SPR) for ion therapy treatment planning. Several approaches have been proposed recently, however accuracy and practicability in a clinical workflow are unaddressed. The aim of this work is to provide a fair comparison of available approaches in a human‐like phantom to find the optimal method for tissue characterization in a clinical situation. Methods: The SPR determination accuracy is investigated using simulated DECT images. A virtual human‐like phantom is created containing 14 different standard human tissues. SECT (120 kV) and DECT images (100 kV and 140 kV Sn) are simulated using the software ImaSim. The single energy CT (SECT) stoichiometric calibration method and four recently published calibration‐based DECT methods are implemented and used to predict the SPRs from simulated images. The difference between SPR predictions and theoretical SPR are compared pixelwize. Mean, standard deviation and skewness of the SPR difference distributions are used as measures for bias, dispersion and symmetry. Results: The average SPR differences and standard deviations are (0.22 ± 1.27)% for SECT, and A) (−0.26 ± 1.30)%, B) (0.08 ± 1.12)%, C) (0.06 ± 1.15)% and D) (−0.05 ± 1.05)% for the four DECT methods. While SPR prediction using SECT is showing a systematic error on SPR, the DECT methods B, C and D are unbiased. The skewness of the SECT distribution is 0.57%, and A) −0.19%, B) −0.56%, C) −0.29% and D) −0.07% for DECT methods respectively. Conclusion: The here presented DECT methods B, C and D outperform the commonly used SECT stoichiometric calibration. These methods predict SPR accurately without a bias and within ± 1.2% (68th percentile). This indicates that DECT potentially improves accuracy of range predictions in proton therapy. A validation of these findings using clinical CT images of real tissues is necessary.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".