Technical Note: Synthesizing of lung tumors in computed tomography images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: When investigating new radiation therapy techniques in the treatment planning stage, it can be extremely time consuming to locate multiple patient scans that match the desired characteristics for the treatment. With the help of machine learning, we propose to bypass the difficulty in finding patient computed tomography (CT) scans that match the treatment requirements. Furthermore, we aim to provide the developed method as a tool that is easily accessible to interested researchers. METHODS: We propose a generative adversarial network (GAN) to edit individual volumes of interest (VOIs) in pre-existing CT scans, translating features of the healthy VOIs into features of cancerous volumes. Training and testing was done using VOIs from a dataset of 460 diagnostic and lung cancer screening CT scans. Agreement between real tumors and those produced by the editor was tested by comparing the distributions of several histogram parameters and second-order statistics as well as using qualitative analysis. RESULTS: After training, the network was successfully able to map healthy CT segments to realistic looking cancerous volumes. Based on visual inspection, tumors produced by the editor were found to be both realistic and visually consistent with the surrounding anatomy when placed back into the original CT scan. Furthermore, the network was found to be able to extrapolate well beyond the upper size limit of the training set. Lastly, a graphical user interface (GUI) was developed to easily interact with the resulting network. CONCLUSION: The trained network and associated GUI can serve as a tool to develop an abundance of lung cancer patient data to be used in treatment planning. In addition, this method can be extended to a variety of cancer types if given an appropriate baseline dataset. The GUI and instructions on how to utilize the tool have been made publicly available at https://github.com/teaghan/CT_Editor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".