MO‐F‐CAMPUS‐T‐05: Correct Or Not to Correct for Rotational Patient Set‐Up Errors in Stereotactic Radiosurgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To quantify the effect of patient rotation in stereotactic radiation therapy and establish a threshold where rotational patient set‐up errors have a significant impact on target coverage. Methods: To simulate rotational patient set‐up errors, a Matlab code was created to rotate the patient dose distribution around the treatment isocentre, located centrally in the lesion, while keeping the structure contours in the original locations on the CT and MRI. Rotations of 1°, 3°, and 5° for each of the pitch, roll, and yaw, as well as simultaneous rotations of 1°, 3°, and 5° around all three axes were applied to two types of brain lesions: brain metastasis and acoustic neuroma. In order to analyze multiple tumour shapes, these plans included small spherical (metastasis), elliptical (acoustic neuroma), and large irregular (metastasis) tumour structures. Dose‐volume histograms and planning target volumes were compared between the planned patient positions and those with simulated rotational set‐up errors. The RTOG conformity index for patient rotation was also investigated. Results: Examining the tumour volumes that received 80% of the prescription dose in the planned and rotated patient positions showed decreases in prescription dose coverage of up to 2.3%. Conformity indices for treatments with simulated rotational errors showed decreases of up to 3% compared to the original plan. For irregular lesions, degradation of 1% of the target coverage can be seen for rotations as low as 3°. Conclusions: This data shows that for elliptical or spherical targets, rotational patient set‐up errors less than 3° around any or all axes do not have a significant impact on the dose delivered to the target volume or the conformity index of the plan. However the same rotational errors would have an impact on plans for irregular tumours.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".