Synthetic 4D-CT of the thorax for treatment plan adaptation on MR-guided radiotherapy systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract MR-guided radiotherapy treatment planning utilises the high soft-tissue contrast of MRI to reduce uncertainty in delineation of the target and organs at risk. Replacing 4D-CT with MRI-derived synthetic 4D-CT would support treatment plan adaptation on hybrid MR-guided radiotherapy systems for inter- and intrafractional differences in anatomy and respiration, whilst mitigating the risk of CT to MRI registration errors. Three methods were devised to calculate synthetic 4D and midposition (time-weighted mean position of the respiratory cycle) CT from 4D-T1w and Dixon MRI. The first approach employed intensity-based segmentation of Dixon MRI for bulk-density assignment (sCTD). The second step added spine density information using an atlas of CT and Dixon MRI (sCTDS). The third iteration used a polynomial function relating Hounsfield units and normalised T1w image intensity to account for variable lung density (sCTDSL). Motion information in 4D-T1w MRI was applied to generate synthetic CT in midposition and in twenty respiratory phases. For six lung cancer patients, synthetic 4D-CT was validated against 4D-CT in midposition by comparison of Hounsfield units and dose-volume metrics. Dosimetric differences found by comparing sCTD,DS,DSL and CT were evaluated using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p = 0.05). Compared to sCTD and sCTDS, planning on sCTDSL significantly reduced absolute dosimetric differences in the planning target volume metrics to less than 98 cGy (1.7% of the prescribed dose) on average. When comparing sCTDSL and CT, average radiodensity differences were within 97 Hounsfield units and dosimetric differences were significant only for the planning target volume D99% metric. All methods produced clinically acceptable results for the organs at risk in accordance with the UK SABR consensus guidelines and the LungTech EORTC phase II trial. The overall good agreement between sCTDSL and CT demonstrates the feasibility of employing synthetic 4D-CT for plan adaptation on hybrid MR-guided radiotherapy systems.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".