MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590207126 · doi:10.3938/jkps.67.17

Study of quality assurance regulations for linear accelerators in Korea: A comparison study between the current status in Korea and the international guidelines

2015· article· en· W1590207126 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hyunho Lee, Seonghoon Jeong, Yunhui Jo, Myonggeun Yoon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Korean Physical Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality assuranceConcordanceKappaQuality (philosophy)MedicineMedical physicsMathematicsExternal quality assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quality assurance (QA) for medical linear accelerators is indispensable for appropriate cancer treatment. Some international organizations and advanced Western countries have provided QA guidelines for linear accelerators. Currently, QA regulations for linear accelerators in Korean hospitals specify a system in which each hospital stipulates its independent hospital-based protocols for QA procedures (HP_QAPs) and conducts QA based on those HP_QAPs while regulatory authorities verify whether items under those HP_QAPs have been performed. However, because this regulatory method cannot guarantee the quality of universal treatment and QA items with tolerance criteria are different in many hospitals, the presentation of standardized QA items and tolerance criteria is essential. In this study, QA items in HP_QAPs from various hospitals and those presented by international organizations, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the European Union, and the American Association of Physicist in Medicine, and by advanced Western countries, such as the USA, the UK, and Canada, were compared. Concordance rates between QA items for linear accelerators that were presented by the aforementioned organizations and those currently being implemented in Korean hospitals were shown to exhibit a daily QA of 50%, a weekly QA of 22%, a monthly QA of 43%, and an annual QA of 65%, and the overall concordance rates of all QA items were approximately 48%. In the comparison between QA items being implemented in Korean hospitals and those being implemented in advanced Western countries, concordance rates were shown to exhibit a daily QA of 50%, a weekly QA of 33%, a monthly QA of 60%, and an annual QA of 67%, and the overall concordance rates of all QA items were approximately 57%. The results of this study indicate that the HP_QAPs currently implemented by Korean hospitals as QA standards for linear accelerators used in radiation therapy do not meet international standards. If this problem is to be solved, national standardized QA items and procedures for linear accelerators need to be developed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Korean Physical SocietySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207