Evaluation of an anthropomorphic male pelvic phantom for image-guided radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
B Schaly1, V Varchena2, P Au3, G Pang3,41Grand River Regional Cancer Centre, Kitchener, ON, Canada; 2CIRS Inc., Norfolk, VA, USA; 3Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada; 4Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Abstract: Soft-tissue imaging in the treatment room is one of the main challenges faced today in high precision radiotherapy. The objective of this work is to evaluate a new anthropomorphic male pelvic phantom (CIRS Inc., Norfolk, VA, USA) that can be used in a radiotherapy department to assess the ability of an X-ray imaging system for imaging soft-tissue targets in the treatment room. To this end, we evaluated the tissue-equivalency of the phantom materials in terms of the linear attenuation and energy absorption coefficients. X-ray computed tomography (CT) images of the phantom were also obtained and compared with that of patients. Our results demonstrated that the male pelvic phantom is a good representation of actual prostate cancer patients and can be a valuable tool for image-guided radiotherapy. Keywords: image-guided radiotherapy, X-ray imaging, anthropomorphic phantomPACS numbers: 87.56.Fc, 87.59.bd, 87.85.Lf
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".