A biomechanical approach for <i>in vivo </i>diaphragm muscle motion prediction during normal respiration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer death in men and women. External Beam Radiation Therapy (EBRT) is a commonly used primary treatment for the condition. A major challenge with such treatments is the delivery of sufficient radiation dose to the lung tumor while ensuring that surrounding healthy lung parenchyma receives only minimal dose. This can be achieved by coupling EBRT with respiratory computer models which can predict the tumour location as a function of phase during the breathing cycle1. The diaphragm muscle contraction is mainly responsible for a large portion of the lung tumor motion during normal breathing, especially when tumours are in the lower lobes, therefore the importance of accurately modelling the diaphragm is paramount in lung tumour motion prediction. The goal of this research is to develop a biomechanical model of the diaphragm, including its active and passive response, using detailed geometric, biomechanical and anatomical information that mimics the diaphragmatic behaviour in a patient specific manner. For this purpose, a Finite Element Model (FEM) of the diaphragm was developed in order to predict the in vivo motion of the diaphragm, paving the way for computer assisted lung cancer tumor tracking in EBRT. Preliminary results obtained from the proposed model are promising and they indicate that it can be used as a plausible tool for effective lung cancer EBRT to improve patient care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".