MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W758288701 · doi:10.1118/1.4924871

SU‐E‐T‐509: Inter‐Observer and Inter‐Modality Contouring Analysis for Organs at Risk for HDR Gynecological Brachytherapy

2015· article· en· W758288701 on OpenAlexaff
Parisa Sadeghi, Rintu Banerjee‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬, Majed Alghamdi, Tien Phan, Amandeep Taggar, Wendy Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContouringMedicineNuclear medicineRectumBrachytherapyMagnetic resonance imagingDosimetryMedical imagingRadiologyRadiation therapyModality (human–computer interaction)SurgeryComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This study quantifies errors associated with MR‐guided High Dose Rate (HDR) gynecological brachytherapy. Uncertainties in this treatment results from contouring, organ motion between imaging and treatment delivery, dose calculation, and dose delivery. We focus on interobserver and inter‐modality variability in contouring and the motion of organs at risk (OARs) in the time span between the MR and CT scans (∼1 hour). We report the change in organ volume and position of center of mass (CM) between the two imaging modalities. Methods A total of 8 patients treated with MR‐guided HDR brachytherapy were included in this study. Two observers contoured the bladder and rectum on both MR and CT scans. The change in OAR volume and CM position between the MR and CT imaging sessions on both image sets were calculated. Results The absolute mean bladder volume change between the two imaging modalities is 67.1cc. The absolute mean inter‐observer difference in bladder volume is much lower at 15.5cc (MR) and 11.0cc (CT). This higher inter‐modality volume difference suggests a real change in the bladder filling between the two imaging sessions. Change in Rectum volume inter‐observer standard error of means (SEM) is 3.18cc (MR) and 3.09cc (CT), while the inter‐modality SEM is 3.65cc (observer 1), and 2.75cc (observer 2). The SEM for rectum CM position in the superior‐inferior direction was approximately three times higher than in other directions for both the inter—observer (0.77 cm, 0.92 cm for observers 1 and 2, respectively) and inter‐modality (0.91 cm, 0.95 cm for MR and CT, respectively) variability. Conclusion Bladder contours display good consistency between different observers on both CT and MR images. For rectum contouring the highest inconsistency stems from the observers’ choice of the superior‐inferior borders. A complete analysis of a larger patient cohort will enable us to separate the true organ motion from the inter‐observer variability.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207