SU‐E‐J‐164: Estimation of DVH Variation for PTV Due to Interfraction Organ Motion in Prostate VMAT Using Gaussian Error Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We developed a method to predict the change of DVH for PTV due to interfraction organ motion in prostate VMAT without repeating the CT scan and treatment planning. The method is based on a pre‐calculated patient database with DVH curves of PTV modelled by the Gaussian error function (GEF). Methods: For a group of 30 patients with different prostate sizes, their VMAT plans were recalculated by shifting their PTVs 1 cm with 10 increments in the anterior‐posterior, left‐right and superior‐inferior directions. The DVH curve of PTV in each replan was then fitted by the GEF to determine parameters describing the shape of curve. Information of parameters, varying with the DVH change due to prostate motion for different prostate sizes, was analyzed and stored in a database of a program written by MATLAB. Results: To predict a new DVH for PTV due to prostate interfraction motion, prostate size and shift distance with direction were input to the program. Parameters modelling the DVH for PTV were determined based on the pre‐calculated patient dataset. From the new parameters, DVH curves of PTVs with and without considering the prostate motion were plotted for comparison. The program was verified with different prostate cases involving interfraction prostate shifts and replans. Conclusion: Variation of DVH for PTV in prostate VMAT can be predicted using a pre‐calculated patient database with DVH curve fitting. The computing time is fast because CT rescan and replan are not required. This quick DVH estimation can help radiation staff to determine if the changed PTV coverage due to prostate shift is tolerable in the treatment. However, it should be noted that the program can only consider prostate interfraction motions along three axes, and is restricted to prostate VMAT plan using the same plan script in the treatment planning system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".