Patient‐specific calibration of cone‐beam computed tomography data sets for radiotherapy dose calculations and treatment plan assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this work, we propose a new method of calibrating cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data sets for radiotherapy dose calculation and plan assessment. The motivation for this patient-specific calibration (PSC) method is to develop an efficient, robust, and accurate CBCT calibration process that is less susceptible to deformable image registration (DIR) errors. METHODS: Instead of mapping the CT numbers voxel-by-voxel with traditional DIR calibration methods, the PSC methods generates correlation plots between deformably registered planning CT and CBCT voxel values, for each image slice. A linear calibration curve specific to each slice is then obtained by least-squares fitting, and applied to the CBCT slice's voxel values. This allows each CBCT slice to be corrected using DIR without altering the patient geometry through regional DIR errors. A retrospective study was performed on 15 head-and-neck cancer patients, each having routine CBCTs and a middle-of-treatment re-planning CT (reCT). The original treatment plan was re-calculated on the patient's reCT image set (serving as the gold standard) as well as the image sets produced by voxel-to-voxel DIR, density-overriding, and the new PSC calibration methods. Dose accuracy of each calibration method was compared to the reference reCT data set using common dose-volume metrics and 3D gamma analysis. A phantom study was also performed to assess the accuracy of the DIR and PSC CBCT calibration methods compared with planning CT. RESULTS: Compared with the gold standard using reCT, the average dose metric differences were ≤ 1.1% for all three methods (PSC: -0.3%; DIR: -0.7%; density-override: -1.1%). The average gamma pass rates with thresholds 3%, 3 mm were also similar among the three techniques (PSC: 95.0%; DIR: 96.1%; density-override: 94.4%). CONCLUSIONS: An automated patient-specific calibration method was developed which yielded strong dosimetric agreement with the results obtained using a re-planning CT for head-and-neck patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".