MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037946733 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab9fcb

Evaluation of CBCT scatter correction using deep convolutional neural networks for head and neck adaptive proton therapy

2020· article· en· W3037946733 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Arthur Lalonde, Brian Winey, Joost Verburg, Harald Paganetti, G Sharp

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsImaging phantomProton therapyNuclear medicineHead and neckCone beam computed tomographyProjection (relational algebra)Context (archaeology)Monte Carlo methodConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMedicineRadiation therapyComputed tomographyRadiologyAlgorithmStatisticsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptive proton therapy (APT) is a promising approach for the treatment of head and neck cancers. One crucial element of APT is daily volumetric imaging of the patient in the treatment position. Such data can be acquired with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), although scatter artifacts make uncorrected CBCT images unsuitable for proton therapy dose calculation. The purpose of this work is to evaluate the performance of a U-shape deep convolutive neural network (U-Net) to perform projection-based scatter correction and enable fast and accurate dose calculation on CBCT images in the context of head and neck APT. CBCT projections are simulated for a cohort of 48 head and neck patients using a GPU accelerated Monte Carlo (MC) code . A U-Net is trained to reproduce MC projection-based scatter correction from raw projections. The accuracy of the scatter correction is experimentally evaluated using CT and CBCT images of an anthropomorphic head phantom. The potential of the method for head and neck APT is assessed by comparing proton therapy dose distributions calculated on scatter-free, uncorrected and scatter-corrected CBCT images. Finally, dose calculation accuracy is estimated in experimental patient images using a previously validated empirical scatter correction as reference. The mean and mean absolute HU differences between scatter-free and scatter-corrected images are -0.8 and 13.4 HU, compared to -28.6 and 69.6 HU for the uncorrected images. In the head phantom, the root-mean square difference of proton ranges calculated in the reference CT and corrected CBCT is 0.73 mm. The average 2%/2 mm gamma pass rate for proton therapy plans optimized in the scatter free images and re-calculated in the scatter-corrected ones is 98.89%. In experimental CBCT patient images, a 3%/3 mm passing rate of 98.72% is achieved between the proposed method and the reference one. All CBCT projection volume could be corrected in less than 5 seconds.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

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 head0.350
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.087 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207