SU‐E‐T‐160: Characterization and Monitoring of Linear Accelerator Gantry Radiation Isocenter Motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To characterize the motion of the radiation isocenter, over time, as a function of gantry rotation for multiple linear accelerators (linacs). Two semi‐automated image‐based quality control (QC) test workflows were designed to achieve this goal. Methods: The full QC‐test workflow for motion characterization consisted of acquiring 16 megavoltage images at 8 gantry angles of a ball‐bearing suspended off the end of the couch. Performance constancy was assessed using a shortened QC‐test workflow which consisted of imaging a cube phantom placed on the couch (5 images at 4 gantry angles). Both workflows use an image processing algorithm to determine the field center and phantom position on each image and computed radiation isocenter motion as a function of gantry angle. Motion was characterized for 9 linacs of same model and performance monitored for 2 months on 3 linacs. Results: The maximum isocenter motion determined with the full‐workflow for 9 linacs was within 0.38–0.79 mm. The shortened‐workflow usually agreed within 0.1 mm with the full‐workflow and the time required for these methods was about 4 and 15 min, respectively. For all linacs, the isocenter motion perpendicular to the gantry rotation plane followed a consistent pattern with maximum amplitude of 0.36–0.59 mm. In the gantry rotation plane, the variation among linacs was higher and the beam axis described a circle of up to 0.6 mm radius around the gantry axis of rotation (2 linacs). The radiation isocenter motion was stable as a function of time for the monitored linacs and was within ±0.1 mm of the average. Conclusion: Radiation isocenter motion parallel and perpendicular to the gantry rotation plane was characterized. In the gantry rotation plane, beam spot positioning adjustment might be used to reduce the observed radiation isocenter motion. A shortened‐workflow was designed and enables performance monitoring over time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".