SU‐E‐J‐153: Reconstructing 4D Cone Beam CT Images for Clinical QA of Lung SABR Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To verify that the planned Primary Target Volume (PTV) and Internal Gross Tumor Volume (IGTV) fully enclose a moving lung tumor volume as visualized on a pre‐SABR treatment verification 4D Cone Beam CT. Methods: Daily 3DCBCT image sets were acquired immediately prior to treatment for 10 SABR lung patients using the on‐board imaging system integrated into a Varian TrueBeam (v1.6: no 4DCBCT module available). Respiratory information was acquired during the scan using the Varian RPM system. The CBCT projections were sorted into 8 bins offline, both by breathing phase and amplitude, using in‐house software. An iterative algorithm based on total variation minimization, implemented in the open source reconstruction toolkit (RTK), was used to reconstruct the binned projections into 4DCBCT images. The relative tumor motion was quantified by tracking the centroid of the tumor volume from each 4DCBCT image. Following CT‐CBCT registration, the planning CT volumes were compared to the location of the CBCT tumor volume as it moves along its breathing trajectory. An overlap metric quantified the ability of the planned PTV and IGTV to contain the tumor volume at treatment. Results: The 4DCBCT reconstructed images visibly show the tumor motion. The mean overlap between the planned PTV (IGTV) and the 4DCBCT tumor volumes was 100% (94%), with an uncertainty of 5% from the 4DCBCT tumor volume contours. Examination of the tumor motion and overlap metric verify that the IGTV drawn at the planning stage is a good representation of the tumor location at treatment. Conclusion: It is difficult to compare GTV volumes from a 4DCBCT and a planning CT due to image quality differences. However, it was possible to conclude the GTV remained within the PTV 100% of the time thus giving the treatment staff confidence that SABR lung treatements are being delivered accurately.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".