MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286688112 · doi:10.1016/j.adro.2022.101031

A Contouring Strategy and Reference Atlases for the Full Abdominopelvic Bowel Bag on Treatment Planning and Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images

2022· article· en· W4286688112 on OpenAlexafffund
Elizabeth Orton, Elsayed Ali, Keren Mayorov, Colin Brown, Nawaid Usmani, Shilo Lefresne, Michael Peacock, Kristopher Dennis

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Radiation Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of AlbertaOttawa HospitalBC Cancer AgencyHealth PEIUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsContouringMedicineRadiation treatment planningCone beam computed tomographyVisibilityMedical physicsRadiologyNuclear medicineComputed tomographyRadiation therapyComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To establish a practical contouring strategy with reference atlases for the abdominopelvic bowel bag on treatment planning computed tomography (TPCT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Methods and Materials: A scoping literature review was done to evaluate the existing definitions and contouring guidelines for bowel bag and small bowel planning-at-risk volume-like structures. A comprehensive definition was proposed for the abdominopelvic bowel bag that expanded the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Pelvic Normal Tissue Consensus definition. Seven patients with TPCT and first-treatment-day CBCT images were selected from an institutional database to represent a range of normal anatomy and CBCT image quality. The TPCT and CBCT images were contoured using the proposed definition. During contouring, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group definition's list of inclusion and exclusion structures was expanded. For areas with limited visibility of the bowel bag on either TPCT or CBCT, a set of operational definitions was developed based on consistently visible reference structures. Results: A literature review showed that previously existing bowel bag definitions predominantly focused on the pelvic region and did not provide a complete and practical description of the full abdominopelvic contour relative to structures consistently visible in all radiation therapy images. The proposed contouring strategy had 4 components: a definition, a list of inclusion and exclusion structures, 15 tabulated operational definitions, and a set of atlases. The bowel bag was defined as the peritoneal cavity and retroperitoneal duodenum and ascending and descending colon, as visualized at the time of image acquisition. The operational definitions formalized the location of the peritoneal fascial planes through a simple look-up table. The proposed contouring strategy and reference atlases were successfully used on both TPCT and CBCT images. Conclusions: This study produced a practical contouring strategy and reference atlases to enable reproducible delineation of the full bowel bag on TPCT and CBCT images. The strategy is a necessary first step toward consensus contouring with reduced observer variability, which is a prerequisite for evaluation of cumulative dose and its correlation with toxic effects, adaptive planning strategies, and automated contouring potential.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Radiation OncologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207