Animal tissue-based quantitative comparison of dual-energy CT to SPR conversion methods using high-resolution gel dosimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) has been shown to allow for more accurate ion therapy treatment planning by improving the estimation of tissue stopping power ratio (SPR) relative to water, among other tissue properties. In this study, we measured and compared the accuracy of SPR values derived using both dual- and single-energy CT (SECT) based on different published conversion algorithms. For this purpose, a phantom setup containing either fresh animal soft tissue samples (beef, pork) and a water reference or tissue equivalent plastic materials was designed and irradiated in a clinical proton therapy facility. Dosimetric polymer gel was positioned downstream of the samples to obtain a three-dimensional proton range distribution with high spatial resolution. The mean proton range in gel for each tissue relative to the water sample was converted to a SPR value. Additionally, the homogeneous samples were probed with a variable water column encompassed by two ionization chambers to benchmark the SPR accuracy of the gel dosimetry. The SPR values measured with both methods were consistent with a mean deviation of 0.2%, but the gel dosimetry captured range variations up to 5 mm within individual samples.Across all fresh tissue samples the SECT approach yielded significantly greater mean absolute deviations from the SPR deduced using gel range measurements, with an average difference of 1.2%, compared to just 0.3% for the most accurate DECT-based algorithm. These results show a significant advantage of DECT over SECT for stopping power prediction in a realistic setting, and for the first time allow to compare a large set of methods under the same conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".