Cycle-consistent Generative Adversarial Network Synthetic CT for MR-only Adaptive Radiation Therapy on MR-Linac
Authors:
Gabriel L. Asher,
Bassem I. Zaki,
Gregory A. Russo,
Gobind S. Gill,
Charles R. Thomas,
Temiloluwa O. Prioleau,
Rongxiao Zhang,
Brady Hunt
Abstract:
Purpose: This study assesses the effectiveness of Deep Learning (DL) for creating synthetic CT (sCT) images in MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy (MRgART).
Methods: A Cycle-GAN model was trained with MRI and CT scan slices from MR-LINAC treatments, generating sCT volumes. The analysis involved retrospective treatment plan data from patients with various tumors. sCT images were compared with st…
▽ More
Purpose: This study assesses the effectiveness of Deep Learning (DL) for creating synthetic CT (sCT) images in MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy (MRgART).
Methods: A Cycle-GAN model was trained with MRI and CT scan slices from MR-LINAC treatments, generating sCT volumes. The analysis involved retrospective treatment plan data from patients with various tumors. sCT images were compared with standard CT scans using mean absolute error in Hounsfield Units (HU) and image similarity metrics (SSIM, PSNR, NCC). sCT volumes were integrated into a clinical treatment system for dosimetric re-evaluation.
Results: The model, trained on 8405 frames from 57 patients and tested on 357 sCT frames from 17 patients, showed sCTs comparable to dCTs in electron density and structural similarity with MRI scans. The MAE between sCT and dCT was 49.2 +/- 13.2 HU, with sCT NCC exceeding dCT by 0.06, and SSIM and PSNR at 0.97 +/- 0.01 and 19.9 +/- 1.6 respectively. Dosimetric evaluations indicated minimal differences between sCTs and dCTs, with sCTs showing better air-bubble reconstruction.
Conclusions: DL-based sCT generation on MR-Linacs is accurate for dose calculation and optimization in MRgART. This could facilitate MR-only treatment planning, enhancing simulation and adaptive planning efficiency on MR-Linacs.
△ Less
Submitted 2 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
CheepSync: A Time Synchronization Service for Resource Constrained Bluetooth Low Energy Advertisers
Authors:
Sabarish Sridhar,
Prasant Misra,
Gurinder Singh Gill,
Jay Warrior
Abstract:
Clock synchronization is highly desirable in distributed systems, including many applications in the Internet of Things and Humans (IoTH). It improves the efficiency, modularity and scalability of the system, and optimizes use of event triggers. For IoTH, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) - a subset of the recent Bluetooth v4.0 stack - provides a low-power and loosely coupled mechanism for sensor data co…
▽ More
Clock synchronization is highly desirable in distributed systems, including many applications in the Internet of Things and Humans (IoTH). It improves the efficiency, modularity and scalability of the system, and optimizes use of event triggers. For IoTH, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) - a subset of the recent Bluetooth v4.0 stack - provides a low-power and loosely coupled mechanism for sensor data collection with ubiquitous units (e.g., smartphones and tablets) carried by humans. This fundamental design paradigm of BLE is enabled by a range of broadcast advertising modes. While its operational benefits are numerous, the lack of a common time reference in the broadcast mode of BLE has been a fundamental limitation. This paper presents and describes CheepSync: a time synchronization service for BLE advertisers, especially tailored for applications requiring high time precision on resource constrained BLE platforms. Designed on top of the existing Bluetooth v4.0 standard, the CheepSync framework utilizes low-level timestam** and comprehensive error compensation mechanisms for overcoming uncertainties in message transmission, clock drift and other system specific constraints. CheepSync was implemented on custom designed nRF24Cheep beacon platforms (as broadcasters) and commercial off-the-shelf Android ported smartphones (as passive listeners). We demonstrate the efficacy of CheepSync by numerous empirical evaluations in a variety of experimental setups, and show that its average (single-hop) time synchronization accuracy is in the 10us range.
△ Less
Submitted 8 April, 2016; v1 submitted 26 January, 2015;
originally announced January 2015.
