MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3159366155

Investigating the Roles of Reconstruction and the Self-Calibration Factor for 90Y SPECT/CT Image-based Dosimetry

2020· article· en· W3159366155 on OpenAlexaff
Taehyung Peter Kim, Daniel Juneau, Shirin A. Enger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimetryIterative reconstructionVoxelCalibrationReconstruction filterNuclear medicineCollimatorImage resolutionMonte Carlo methodComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMedical physicsComputer visionPhysicsFilter (signal processing)MedicineOpticsStatisticsFilter design
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1017 Objectives: The local deposition, dose-point kernel convolution, and Monte Carlo methods are currently the three image-based dosimetry techniques for Yttrium-90 (90Y) radioembolization. Image-based, these dosimetry techniques are dependent on the method of image reconstructions performed. In regards to dosimetry, the different effects between subset and iteration numbers have not been investigated. 90Y SPECT/CT dosimetry further utilizes a self-calibration factor to equate counts per voxel to activity per voxel based on the rationale that all the activity is confined within any specified ROI. Consequently, we investigate the role of these factors on image-based dosimetry through the local deposition method. Methods: In this presented work, a single patient’s 90Y SPECT/CT image was retrospectively used to investigate the impact of different reconstruction parameters and self-calibration factors. This patient was treated with of 90Y glass microspheres. In this work, we performed a total of seven OSEM reconstructions with HybridRecon (v1.0 Hermes) with a varying number of subsets and iterations to an equivalent of 150 MLEM iterations (e.g. 5sub30iter). All reconstructions were either performed with 8.5mm Gaussian post-filtering or reconstructed with OSEM MAP with median root prior (MRP) and a Bayesian weight of .3. A recommend clinical reconstruction was further performed with 5 iterations, 15 iterations, and a .4 cm-1 Butteworth filter (Clinical). These reconstructions were corrected for collimator scatter, scatter, had resolution recovery, and attenuation corrections based on CT. Contours of the liver, lung, and body were drawn using MIM Maestro v6.6. All processing of data and the local deposition method was developed in python code. Voxel densities were calculated using a scanner specific linear lookup table based on electron density phantom scans. The local deposition used the resulting voxel densities from the CT and interpolated SPECT voxels to perform absorbed dose calculations. For dose calculations, the 90Y half-life was set at 64.24 hours, used an average energy of .935 MeV per disintegration, and set the self-calibration factor dependent on the a specific contoured ROI (FOV, Body, and LiverLung). Due to an incomplete lung volume shown in the CT, an adjusted self-calibration method was additionally introduced that combined technetium macro-aggregated albumin based lung-shunting fraction with the same LiverLung contours. This method (TcMAA) allowed the liver and lung activities to be adjusted by a lung-shunt fraction resulting in two self-calibration factors specific to the liver and lung. Results: The range for liver and lung mean absorbed doses was 9.92 to 24.93 Gy and 2.84 to 8.08 Gy, respectively. These doses were dependent upon the combination of the self-calibration factor and type of reconstruction algorithm. Figure 1’s boxplots illustrate that the self-calibration factor had a bigger effect in determining the change in mean absorbed dose calculations, than reconstructions. Conclusions: The provided results illustrate that mean absorbed dose calculations to the target and healthy tissues can vary depending on the self-calibration factor and type of the reconstruction algorithms used. Consensus regarding which parameters to use is important for more accurate dosimetry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→