MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936457437 · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/ab18e6

Theoretical tumor edge detection technique using multiple Bragg peak decomposition in carbon ion therapy

2019· article· en· W2936457437 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Physics & Engineering Express · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
KeywordsBeam (structure)Bragg peakMaterials scienceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionPosition (finance)Range (aeronautics)Carbon fibersParametric statisticsOpticsBiomedical engineeringPhysicsComputer scienceMathematicsMedicineComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose: The range precision in carbon ion therapy is extremely sensitive to tissue density variations. A high energy carbon beam, after crossing a high-gradient edge parallel to the beam direction, suffers from range mixing leading to the detection of multiple Bragg peaks (BPs) varying intensity and water equivalent thickness (WET). The purpose of this work was to introduce a model that determines the position of a high-gradient edge based on information acquired from carbon transmission imaging. Methods: A model was derived to determine the lateral distance between the irradiation beam propagation axis and the edge position. To validate it, carbon beams were simulated and propagated through two parametric phantoms: (1) a bone cube in a water tank and (2) a semi-cylindrical bone insert in a water tank. The method was tested in a lung tumor case where range mixing led to more than two BPs being detected, requiring an iterative BP decomposition to determine the fraction of carbon ions crossing the materials surrounding the edge of interest. Results: The theoretical model predicted the edge position relative to the beam position with an error ≤1 mm for all studied cases with a maximum dose delivered of 24 μ Gy. Conclusions: The method presented here is a proof of principle. It does not take into account clinical uncertainties. However, this approach provided promising results suggesting that future extension to assess the impact of clinical uncertainties should be performed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it