Evaluation of Varian’s SmartAdapt for clinical use in radiation therapy for patients with thoracic lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Deformable image registration (DIR) is a required tool in any adaptive radiotherapy program to help account for anatomical changes that occur during a multifraction treatment. SmartAdapt is a DIR tool from Varian incorporated within the eclipse treatment planning system, that can be used for contour propagation and transfer of PET, MRI, or computed tomography (CT) data. The purpose of this work is to evaluate the registration and contour propagation accuracy of SmartAdapt for thoracic CT studies using the guidelines from AAPM TG 132. METHODS: To evaluate the registration accuracy of SmartAdapt the mean target registration error (TRE) was measured for ten landmarked 4DCT images from the https://www.dir-labs.com/ which included 300 landmarks matching the inspiration and expiration phase images. To further characterize the registration accuracy, the magnitude of deformation for each 4DCT was measured and compared against the mean TRE for each study. Contour propagation accuracy was evaluated using 22 randomly selected lung cancer cases from our center where there was either a replan, or the patient was treated for a new lesion within the lung. Contours evaluated included the right and left lung, esophagus, spinal canal, heart and the GTV and the results were quantified using the DICE similarity coefficient. RESULTS: The mean TRE from all ten cases was 1.89 mm, the maximum mean TRE per case was 3.8 mm from case #8, which also had the most landmark pairs with displacements >2 cm. For contour propagation accuracy, the DICE coefficient results for left lung, right lung, heart, esophagus, and spinal canal were 0.93, 0.94, 0.90, 0.61, and 0.82 respectively. CONCLUSION: The results from our study demonstrate that for thoracic images SmartAdapt in most cases will be accurate to below 2 mm in registration error unless there is deformation greater than 2 cm.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".