COMP Report: A survey of radiation safety regulations for medical imaging x‐ray equipment in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Rigid image registration (RIR) and deformable image registration (DIR) are widely used in radiotherapy. This project aims to capture current international approaches to image registration. METHODS: A survey was designed to identify variations in use, resources, implementation, and decision-making criteria for clinical image registration. This was distributed to radiotherapy centers internationally in 2018. RESULTS: There were 57 responses internationally, from the Americas (46%), Australia/New Zealand (32%), Europe (12%), and Asia (10%). Rigid image registration and DIR were used clinically for computed tomography (CT)-CT registration (96% and 51%, respectively), followed by CT-PET (81% and 47%), CT-CBCT (84% and 19%), CT-MR (93% and 19%), MR-MR (49% and 5%), and CT-US (9% and 0%). Respondent centers performed DIR using dedicated software (75%) and treatment planning systems (29%), with 84% having some form of DIR software. Centers have clinically implemented DIR for atlas-based segmentation (47%), multi-modality treatment planning (65%), and dose deformation (63%). The clinical use of DIR for multi-modality treatment planning and accounting for retreatments was considered to have the highest benefit-to-risk ratio (69% and 67%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This survey data provides useful insights on where, when, and how image registration has been implemented in radiotherapy centers around the world. DIR is mainly in clinical use for CT-CT (51%) and CT-PET (47%) for the head and neck (43-57% over all use cases) region. The highest benefit-risk ratio for clinical use of DIR was for multi-modality treatment planning and accounting for retreatments, which also had higher clinical use than for adaptive radiotherapy and atlas-based segmentation.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".