Poster ‐ 51: A tumor motion‐compensating system with tracking and prediction – a proof‐of‐concept study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This work reports on the development of a mechanical slider system for the counter‐steering of tumor motion in adaptive Radiation Therapy (RT). The tumor motion was tracked using a weighted optical flow algorithm and its position is being predicted with a neural network (NN). Methods: The components of the proposed mechanical counter‐steering system includes: (1) an actuator which provides the tumor motion, (2) the motion detection using an optical flow algorithm, (3) motion prediction using a neural network, (4) a control module and (5) a mechanical slider to counter‐steer the anticipated motion of the tumor phantom. An asymmetrical cosine function and five patient traces (P1–P5) were used to evaluate the tracking of a 3D printed lung tumor. In the proposed mechanical counter‐steering system, both actuator (Zaber NA14D60) and slider (Zaber A‐BLQ0070‐E01) were programed to move independently with LabVIEW and their positions were recorded by 2 potentiometers (ETI LCP12S‐25). The accuracy of this counter‐steering system is given by the difference between the two potentiometers. Results: The inherent accuracy of the system, measured using the cosine function, is −0.15 ± 0.06 mm. While the errors when tracking and prediction were included, is (0.04 ± 0.71) mm. Conclusion: A prototype tumor motion counter‐steering system with tracking and prediction was implemented. The inherent errors are small in comparison to the tracking and prediction errors, which in turn are small in comparison to the magnitude of tumor motion. The results show that this system is suited for evaluating RT tracking and prediction.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".