Technical Principles of Dual-Energy Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Clinical Applications for Radiation Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Medical imaging is an indispensable tool in radiotherapy for dose planning, image guidance and treatment monitoring. Cone beam CT (CBCT) is a low dose imaging technique with high spatial resolution capability as a direct by-product of using flat-panel detectors. However, certain issues such as x-ray scatter, beam hardening and other artifacts limit its utility to the verification of patient positioning using image-guided radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Dual-energy (DE)-CBCT has recently demonstrated promise as an improved tool for tumor visualization in benchtop applications. It has the potential to improve soft-tissue contrast and reduce artifacts caused by beam hardening and metal. In this review, the practical aspects of developing a DE-CBCT based clinical and technical workflow are presented based on existing DE-CBCT literature and concepts adapted from the well-established library of work in DE-CT. Furthermore, the potential applications of DE-CBCT on its future role in radiotherapy are discussed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Based on current literature and an investigation of future applications, there is a clear potential for DE-CBCT technologies to be incorporated into radiotherapy. The applications of DE-CBCT include (but are not limited to): adaptive radiotherapy, brachytherapy, proton therapy, radiomics and theranostics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".