SU‐E‐T‐390: Evaluation of Heterogeneity Corrections Made by RayStation Treatment Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To examine the agreement between absorbed doses calculated by RayStation treatment planning algorithm to those measured with gafchromic film and ion chamber when the photon beam is perturbed by attenuation or lateral scatter of lung material. Methods: A gafchromic EBT2 film was placed in the center of a 30×30×20 cm3 solid water phantom with a 5 cm lung slab placed at 10 cm depth. The film was irradiated at SSD = 100 cm with a 6 MV photon beam, 10×10 and 5×5 cm2 field sizes and with the beam parallel to the film and lung slab. A CT was performed to the phantom arrangement for RayStation dose calculation. The films were scanned in an Epson 10000X flatbed scanner and analyzed using the red channel, 16 bits, 76 dpi. PDD curves at the central axis and profiles at dmax were also measured in water using a CC13 (0.13 CC) ion chamber. Measurements and calculation of PDD curves at the central axis and profiles at dmax and 20 cm depth were compared using the criteria suggested by the AAPM Task Group # 53. Results: The PDD curves measured with gafchromic film and those measured in water with ion chamber agree with the ones calculated by RayStation within the uncertainty of the measurements which is within 3%. The passing rate values of the measured and calculated profiles for the 2 field sizes are within 94% for both at dmax and at 20 cm depth. Conclusion: Raystation dose calculation engine models inhomogeneity corrections. Differences between the calculated PDD curves and profiles and those measured with gafchromic film are within the uncertainty of the measurements and inside of the agreement tolerance suggested by TG53. Therefore, RayStation treatment planning has an acceptable algorithm to correct dose delivered by photon beams perturbed by lung tissue.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".