Dual- and multi-energy CT for particle stopping-power estimation: current state, challenges and potential
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Range uncertainty has been a key factor preventing particle radiotherapy from reaching its full physical potential. One of the main contributing sources is the uncertainty in estimating particle stopping power ( ρ s ) within patients. Currently, the ρ s distribution in a patient is derived from a single-energy CT (SECT) scan acquired for treatment planning by converting CT number expressed in Hounsfield units (HU) of each voxel to ρ s using a Hounsfield look-up table (HLUT), also known as the CT calibration curve. HU and ρ s share a linear relationship with electron density but differ in their additional dependence on elemental composition through different physical properties, i.e. effective atomic number and mean excitation energy, respectively. Because of that, the HLUT approach is particularly sensitive to differences in elemental composition between real human tissues and tissue surrogates as well as tissue variations within and among individual patients. The use of dual-energy CT (DECT) for ρ s prediction has been shown to be effective in reducing the uncertainty in ρ s estimation compared to SECT. The acquisition of CT data over different x-ray spectra yields additional information on the material elemental composition. Recently, multi-energy CT (MECT) has been explored to deduct material-specific information with higher dimensionality, which has the potential to further improve the accuracy of ρ s estimation. Even though various DECT and MECT methods have been proposed and evaluated over the years, these approaches are still only scarcely implemented in routine clinical practice. In this topical review, we aim at accelerating this translation process by providing: (1) a comprehensive review of the existing DECT/MECT methods for ρ s estimation with their respective strengths and weaknesses; (2) a general review of uncertainties associated with DECT/MECT methods; (3) a general review of different aspects related to clinical implementation of DECT/MECT methods; (4) other potential advanced DECT/MECT applications beyond ρ s estimation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it