Dosimetric impact of dual-energy CT tissue segmentation for low-energy prostate brachytherapy: a Monte Carlo study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a novel tissue characterization method using dual-energy over single-energy computed tomography (DECT and SECT) on Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations for low-dose rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy performed in a patient like geometry. A virtual patient geometry is created using contours from a real patient pelvis CT scan, where known elemental compositions and varying densities are overwritten in each voxel. A second phantom is made with additional calcifications. Both phantoms are the ground truth with which all results are compared. Simulated CT images are generated from them using attenuation coefficients taken from the XCOM database with a 100 kVp spectrum for SECT and 80 and 140Sn kVp for DECT. Tissue segmentation for Monte Carlo dose calculation is made using a stoichiometric calibration method for the simulated SECT images. For the DECT images, Bayesian eigentissue decomposition is used. A LDR prostate brachytherapy plan is defined with 125 I sources and then calculated using the EGSnrc user-code Brachydose for each case. Dose distributions and dose-volume histograms (DVH) are compared to ground truth to assess the accuracy of tissue segmentation. For noiseless images, DECT-based tissue segmentation outperforms the SECT procedure with a root mean square error (RMS) on relative errors on dose distributions respectively of 2.39% versus 7.77%, and provides DVHs closest to the reference DVHs for all tissues. For a medium level of CT noise, Bayesian eigentissue decomposition still performs better on the overall dose calculation as the RMS error is found to be of 7.83% compared to 9.15% for SECT. Both methods give a similar DVH for the prostate while the DECT segmentation remains more accurate for organs at risk and in presence of calcifications, with less than 5% of RMS errors within the calcifications versus up to 154% for SECT. In a patient-like geometry, DECT-based tissue segmentation provides dose distributions with the highest accuracy and the least bias compared to SECT. When imaging noise is considered, benefits of DECT are noticeable if important calcifications are found within the prostate.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".