MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513927335 · doi:10.1118/1.4961403

A particle filter based autocontouring algorithm for lung tumor tracking using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging

2016· article· en· W2513927335 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandra E Bourque, Stéphane Bedwani, Édith Filion, Jean‐François Carrier

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsContouringArtificial intelligenceThresholdingContext (archaeology)AlgorithmCentroidMagnetic resonance imagingTracking (education)ModelSimFilter (signal processing)Computer scienceMathematicsNuclear medicineComputer visionImage (mathematics)MedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study introduces a novel autocontouring algorithm based on particle filter for lung tumors. It is validated on dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) images and is developed in the context of MR-linac treatments. METHODS: A sequential Monte Carlo method called particle filter is used as the main structure of the algorithm and is combined with Otsu's thresholding technique to contour lung tumors on dynamic MR images. Four non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were imaged with a 1.5 T MR for 60 s at a rate of 4 images/s and were asked to breathe normally. Prior to treatment, some image processing is required by the proposed algorithm, which includes a manual contour of the tumor, the tumor's displacement, and its descriptive statistics. During treatment, the contours are automatically generated by thresholding around the center of mass of the particles. A comparison with the expert's contours is obtained by calculating the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), the precision, the recall, the Hausdorff distance, and the difference in centroid positions (Δd). RESULTS: This autocontouring algorithm is independent of pretreatment training and presents continuous adaptability as provided by the nature of particle filters. The number of particles is proportional to the area of the tumor and increases the computational time at a rate of 2 ms for every 500 particles, whereas the contouring step adds a constant 14 ms. The contours' comparison is obtained with a mean DSC of 0.89-0.91, mean precision of 0.88-0.91, mean recall of 0.89-0.95, and mean Δd of 0.6-2.0 mm. CONCLUSIONS: This work presents a proof of concept of a new autocontouring algorithm for NSCLC patients on dynamic MR images. The contours were generated in good agreement with the expert's contours.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207