SU‐E‐T‐208: Comparison of MR Image Quality of Various Brachytherapy Applicators for Cervical Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the quality of Magnetic Resonance (MR) images of a recently‐proposed novel direction‐modulated brachytherapy (DMBT) tandem applicator against two conventional clinical applicators, using the current MRI clinical protocol. Methods: Three tandem applicators were compared: (1) tungsten‐based DMBT applicator, (2) conventional plastic applicator and (3) conventional stainless steel applicator. Physical dimensions were 5.4, 3.8 and 3.2 for tandems (1), (2) and (3), respectively. Each applicator was placed in the same water‐phantom and independently scanned using the same parameters and coil settings on a 1.5 T 450w GE scanner. Images were acquired using T2‐weighted turbo‐spin‐echo (TSE) with 8‐channel body coil. Acquisition parameters were TR/TE =7000/108 ms; acquisition matrix = 320 × 256; 30 slices with 4 mm thickness and 0.5 gap; pixel bandwidth = 122 Hz and voxel size = 0.5 × 0.625 mm2 and number of excitations (NEX) = 4. Multiple acquisitions were obtained in para‐sagittal and para‐axial views (with respect to the tandem axis) for each applicator. Diameters of the tandem were measured at multiple angles and multiple locations and compared to the physical dimensions of the corresponding tandems. Results: Minimal susceptibility artifact was observed with the DMBT and the plastic tandems. The stainless steel tandem produced significantly larger artifact than the first two tandems. The average diameter of the DMBT applicator measured 5.94 ± 0.3 mm. The average diameter of the plastic tandem measured 3.9 ± 0.1 mm. The maximum extent of artifact was 1.5 mm and 0.7 mm for DMBT and plastic tandems, respectively. The susceptibility artifact induced by the stainless steel tandem prevented the measurement of its diameter, and the edges of the tandem could not be identified in any acquisition. Conclusion: This work demonstrated that the plastic and the tungsten‐based DMBT tandem applicators are both suitable for MRI‐guided brachytherapy of cervical cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".