Representing the dosimetric impact of deformable image registration errors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deformable image registration (DIR) is emerging as a tool in radiation therapy for calculating the cumulative dose distribution across multiple fractions of treatment. Unfortunately, due to the variable nature of DIR algorithms and dependence of performance on image quality, registration errors can result in dose accumulation errors. In this study, landmarked images were used to characterize the DIR error throughout an image space and determine its impact on dosimetric analysis. Ten thoracic 4DCT images with 300 landmarks per image study matching the end-inspiration and end-expiration phases were obtained from 'dir-labs'. DIR was performed using commercial software MIM Maestro. The range of dose uncertainty (RDU) was calculated at each landmark pair as the maximum and minimum of the doses within a sphere around the landmark in the end-expiration phase. The radius of the sphere was defined by a measure of DIR error which included either the actual DIR error, mean DIR error per study, constant errors of 2 or 5 mm, inverse consistency error, transitivity error or the distance discordance metric (DDM). The RDUs were evaluated using the magnitude of dose uncertainty (MDU) and inclusion rate (IR) of actual error lying within the predicted RDU. The RDU was calculated for 300 landmark pairs on each 4DCT study for all measures of DIR error. The most representative RDU was determined using the actual DIR error with a MDU of 2.5 Gy and IR of 97%. Across all other measures of DIR error, the DDM was most predictive with a MDU of 2.5 Gy and IR of 86%, closest to the actual DIR error. The proposed method represents the range of dosimetric uncertainty of DIR error using either landmarks at specific voxels or measures of registration accuracy throughout the volume.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".