SU-G-IeP2-03: Comparison of Dose Calculation On MAR (metal Artifact Reduction) and Non-MAR Datasets for Pelvic Patients with Hip Prosthesis and Head and Neck Patients with Dental Filling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Metal artifact reduction (MAR) software in computed tomography (CT) was previously evaluated with phantoms demonstrating the algorithm is capable of reducing metal artifacts without affecting the overall image quality. The goal of this study is to determine the dosimetric impact when calculating with CT datasets reconstructed with and without MAR software. Methods: Twelve head and neck cancer patients with dental fillings and four pelvic cancer patients with hip prosthesis were scanned with a GE Optima RT 580 CT scanner. Images were reconstructed with and without the MAR software. 6MV IMRT and VMAT plans were calculated with AAA on the MAR dataset until all constraints met our clinic's guidelines. Contours from the MAR dataset were copied to the non-MAR dataset. Next, dose calculation on the non-MAR dataset was performed using the same field arrangements and fluence as the MAR plan. Conformality index, D99% and V100% to PTV were compared between MAR and non-MAR plans. Results: Differences between MAR and non-MAR plans were evaluated. For head and neck plans, the largest variations in conformality index, D99% and V100% were −3.8%, −0.9% and −2.1% respectively whereas for pelvic plans, the biggest discrepancies were −32.7%, −0.4% and -33.5% respectively. The dosimetric impact from hip prosthesis is greater because it produces more artifacts compared to dental fillings. Coverage to PTV can increase or decrease depending on the artifacts since dark streaks reduce the HU whereas bright streaks increase the HU. In the majority of the cases, PTV dose in the non-MAR plans is higher than MAR plans. Conclusion: With the presence of metals, MAR algorithm can allow more accurate delineation of targets and OARs. Dose difference between MAR and non-MAR plans depends on the proximity of the organ to the high density material, the streaking artifacts and the beam arrangements of the plan.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".