Sci‐Fri PM: Radiation Therapy, Planning, Imaging, and Special Techniques ‐ 11: Quantification of chest wall motion during deep inspiration breast hold treatments using cine EPID images and a physics based algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This work presents an algorithm used to quantify intra‐fraction motion for patients treated using deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH). The algorithm quantifies the position of the chest wall in breast tangent fields using electronic portal images. Methods: The algorithm assumes that image profiles, taken along a direction perpendicular to the medial border of the field, follow a monotonically and smooth decreasing function. This assumption is invalid in the presence of lung and can be used to calculate chest wall position. The algorithm was validated by determining the position of the chest wall for varying field edge positions in portal images of a thoracic phantom. The algorithm was used to quantify intra‐fraction motion in cine images for 7 patients treated with DIBH. Results: Phantom results show that changes in the distance between chest wall and field edge were accurate within 0.1 mm on average. For a fixed field edge, the algorithm calculates the position of the chest wall with a 0.2 mm standard deviation. Intra‐fraction motion for DIBH patients was within 1 mm 91.4% of the time and within 1.5 mm 97.9% of the time. The maximum intra‐fraction motion was 3.0 mm. Conclusions: A physics based algorithm was developed and can be used to quantify the position of chest wall irradiated in tangent portal images with an accuracy of 0.1 mm and precision of 0.6 mm. Intra‐fraction motion for patients treated with DIBH at our clinic is less than 3 mm.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".