MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206840171 · doi:10.1002/mp.15452

Patient‐specific collision zones for 4π trajectory optimized radiation therapy

2022· article· en· W4206840171 on OpenAlexafffund
Cassidy Northway, John Lincoln, Brian Little, Alasdair Syme, Christopher G. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsBeatrice Hunter Cancer Research InstituteNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersBrainlabAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsImaging phantomCollisionTrajectoryScannerNuclear medicineMedical imagingComputer scienceMedicineMedical physicsArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The 4π methodology determines optimized noncoplanar subarcs for stereotactic radiation therapy that minimize dose to organs-at-risk. Every combination of treatment angle is examined, but some angles are not appropriate as a collision would occur between the gantry and the couch or the gantry and the patient. Those combinations of couch and gantry angles are referred to as collision zones. A major barrier to applying 4π to stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is the unknown shape of the collision zones, which are significant as patients take up a large volume within the 4π sphere. This study presents a system that determines patient-specific collision zones, without additional clinical steps, to enable safe and deliverable noncoplanar treatment trajectories for SBRT patients. METHODS: To augment patient's computed tomography (CT) scan, full body scans of patients in treatment position were acquired using an optical scanner. A library of a priori scans (N = 25) was created. Based on the patients' treatment position and their body dimensions, a library scan is selected and registered to the CT scan of the patient. Next, a model of the couch and immobilization equipment is added to the patient model. This results in a patient model that is then aligned with a model of the treatment LINAC in a "virtual treatment room," where both components can be rotated to test for collisions. To test the collision detection algorithm, an end-to-end test was performed using a cranial phantom. The registration algorithm was tested by comparing the registered patient collision zones to those generated by using the patient's matching scan. RESULTS: The collision detection algorithm was found to have a 97.80% accuracy, a 99.99% sensitivity, and a 99.99% negative predictive value (NPV). Analysis of the registration algorithm determined that a 6 cm buffer was required to achieve a 99.65% mean sensitivity, where a sensitivity of unity is considered to be a requirement for safe treatment delivery. With a 6 cm buffer, the mean accuracy was 86.70% and the mean NPV was 99.33%. CONCLUSIONS: Our method of determining patient-specific collision zones can be accomplished with minimal user intervention based on an a priori library of body surface scans, thus enabling the safe application of 4π SBRT.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207