Fractional labelmaps for computing accurate dose volume histograms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In radiation therapy treatment planning systems, structures are represented as parallel 2D contours. For treatment planning algorithms, structures must be converted into labelmap (i.e. 3D image denoting structure inside/outside) representations. This is often done by triangulated a surface from contours, which is converted into a binary labelmap. This surface to binary labelmap conversion can cause large errors in small structures. Binary labelmaps are often represented using one byte per voxel, meaning a large amount of memory is unused. Our goal is to develop a fractional labelmap representation containing non-binary values, allowing more information to be stored in the same amount of memory. METHODS: We implemented an algorithm in 3D Slicer, which converts surfaces to fractional labelmaps by creating 216 binary labelmaps, changing the labelmap origin on each iteration. The binary labelmap values are summed to create the fractional labelmap. In addition, an algorithm is implemented in the SlicerRT toolkit that calculates dose volume histograms (DVH) using fractional labelmaps. RESULTS: We found that with manually segmented RANDO head and neck structures, fractional labelmaps represented structure volume up to 19.07% (average 6.81%) more accurately than binary labelmaps, while occupying the same amount of memory. When compared to baseline DVH from treatment planning software, DVH from fractional labelmaps had agreement acceptance percent (1% ΔD, 1% ΔV) up to 57.46% higher (average 4.33%) than DVH from binary labelmaps. CONCLUSION: Fractional labelmaps promise to be an effective method for structure representation, allowing considerably more information to be stored in the same amount of memory.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
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".