MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213268982 · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/ac396d

Further investigation of 3D dose verification in proton therapy utilizing acoustic signal, wavelet decomposition and machine learning

2021· article· en· W3213268982 on OpenAlexaff
Songhuan Yao, Zongsheng Hu, Qiang Xie, Yidong Yang, Hao Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Physics & Engineering Express · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsPROTO Manufacturing (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomWaveletSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Proton therapyNoise (video)SIGNAL (programming language)Monte Carlo methodComputer scienceWaveformAcousticsArtificial intelligencePhysicsAlgorithmBeam (structure)MathematicsOpticsStatisticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online dose verification in proton therapy is a critical task for quality assurance. We further studied the feasibility of using a wavelet-based machine learning framework to accomplishing that goal in three dimensions, built upon our previous work in 1D. The wavelet decomposition was utilized to extract features of acoustic signals and a bidirectional long-short-term memory (Bi-LSTM) recurrent neural network (RNN) was used. The 3D dose distributions of mono-energetic proton beams (multiple beam energies) inside a 3D CT phantom, were generated using Monte-Carlo simulation. The 3D propagation of acoustic signal was modeled using the k-Wave toolbox. Three different beamlets (i.e. acoustic pathways) were tested, one with its own model. The performance was quantitatively evaluated in terms of mean relative error (MRE) of dose distribution and positioning error of Bragg peak (ΔBP), for two signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Due to the lack of experimental data for the time being, two SNR conditions were modeled (SNR = 1 and 5). The model is found to yield good accuracy and noise immunity for all three beamlets. The results exhibit an MRE below 0.6% (without noise) and 1.2% (SNR = 5), andΔBPbelow 1.2 mm (without noise) and 1.3 mm (SNR = 5). For the worst-case scenario (SNR = 1), the MRE andΔBPare below 2.3% and 1.9 mm, respectively. It is encouraging to find out that our model is able to identify the correlation between acoustic waveforms and dose distributions in 3D heterogeneous tissues, as in the 1D case. The work lays a good foundation for us to advance the study and fully validate the feasibility with experimental results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Physics & Engineering ExpressSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207