PURPOSE: To quantitatively test a breathing motion model using the continuity equation and clinical data. METHODS: The continuity equation was applied to a lung tissue and lung tumor free breathing motion model to quantitatively test the model performance. The model used tidal volume and airflow as the independent variables and the ratio of motion to tidal volume and motion to airflow were defined as alpha and beta vector fields, respectively. The continuity equation resulted in a prediction that the volume integral of the divergence of the alpha vector field was 1.11 for all patients. The integral of the divergence of the beta vector field was expected to be zero. RESULTS: For 35 patients, the alpha vector field prediction was 1.06 +/- 0.14, encompassing the expected value. For the beta vector field prediction, the average value was 0.02 +/- 0.03. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide quantitative evidence that the breathing motion model yields accurate predictions of breathing dynamics.
PURPOSE: To quantitatively test a breathing motion model using the continuity equation and clinical data. METHODS: The continuity equation was applied to a lung tissue and lung tumor free breathing motion model to quantitatively test the model performance. The model used tidal volume and airflow as the independent variables and the ratio of motion to tidal volume and motion to airflow were defined as alpha and beta vector fields, respectively. The continuity equation resulted in a prediction that the volume integral of the divergence of the alpha vector field was 1.11 for all patients. The integral of the divergence of the beta vector field was expected to be zero. RESULTS: For 35 patients, the alpha vector field prediction was 1.06 +/- 0.14, encompassing the expected value. For the beta vector field prediction, the average value was 0.02 +/- 0.03. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide quantitative evidence that the breathing motion model yields accurate predictions of breathing dynamics.
Authors: Daniel A Low; Parag J Parikh; Wei Lu; James F Dempsey; Sasha H Wahab; James P Hubenschmidt; Michelle M Nystrom; Maureen Handoko; Jeffrey D Bradley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tianyu Zhao; Benjamin White; Kevin L Moore; James Lamb; Deshan Yang; Wei Lu; Sasa Mutic; Daniel A Low Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Benjamin M White; Anand Santhanam; David Thomas; Yugang Min; James M Lamb; Jack Neylon; Shyam Jani; Sergio Gaudio; Subashini Srinivasan; Daniel Ennis; Daniel A Low Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: M Ranjbar; P Sabouri; S Mossahebi; D Leiser; M Foote; J Zhang; G Lasio; S Joshi; A Sawant Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Daniel A Low; Benjamin M White; Percy P Lee; David H Thomas; Sergio Gaudio; Shyam S Jani; Xiao Wu; James M Lamb Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 3.609