SU‐E‐T‐648: Quality Assurance Using the RADPOS System for 4D Radiotherapy with CyberKnife
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The CyberKnife robotic radiosurgery system uses Synchrony respiratory motion compensation, which requires independent performance verification. In this work, the RADPOS 4D dosimetry system's motion measurements are compared with internal fiducial position measurements. In addition, RADPOS measurements are compared with Synchrony's predictive correlation model, which is based on internal fiducial and external LED marker position measurements. Methods: A treatment plan was created for a lung insert containing fiducials, RADPOS detector, and Solid Water tumor phantom. Two Quasar Respiratory Motion Phantoms (Q1 and Q2) and two RADPOS detectors (R1 and R2) were used: Q1 simulated lung motion with a lung insert moving in the superior/inferior direction, while Q2 simulated chest motion with a chest platform moving in the anterior/posterior direction. Before treatment, R1 was secured inside of the tumor phantom within Q1, while LED markers and R2 were positioned on the chest platform of Q2. Two treatment delivery cases were studied: isocentric plan (I) and non‐isocentric patient plan (P). Four motion cases were studied: no motion (0), sinusoidal and in‐phase (1), sinusoidal and out‐of‐phase (2), patient waveform and out‐of‐phase (3). A coordinate alignment algorithm was implemented, allowing RADPOS and model position data to be compared within the fiducial coordinate system. Results: The standard deviation of the differences between RADPOS and fiducial position measurements was below 0.6 mm for all experimental cases. The standard deviation of the differences between RADPOS and model position data was 1.0, 1.5, and 1.6 mm along the primary direction of motion for case I1, I2, and P3, respectively. Conclusion: Our work demonstrates that RADPOS is a useful tool for independent quality assurance of CyberKnife treatment with Synchrony respiratory compensation. RADPOS and fiducial position measurement closely match, and RADPOS confirms the effectiveness of CyberKnife's Synchrony motion tracking. This work was supported by OCAIRO (Ontario Consortium for Adaptive Interventions in Radiation Oncology) grant.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".