A study of longitudinal tumor motion in helical tomotherapy using a cylindrical phantom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tumor motion during radiation treatment on a helical tomotherapy unit may create problems due to interplay with motion of the multileaf collimator, gantry rotation, and patient couch translation through the gantry. This study evaluated this interplay effect for typical clinical parameters using a cylindrical phantom consisting of 1386 diode detectors placed on a respiratory motion platform. All combinations of radiation field widths (1, 2.5, and 5 cm) and gantry rotation periods (16, 30, and 60 s) were considered for sinusoidal motions with a period of 4 s and amplitudes of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 mm, as well as real patient breathing pattern. Gamma comparisons with 2% dose difference and 2 mm distance to agreement and dose profiles were used for evaluation. The required motion margins were determined for each set of parameters. The required margin size increased with decreasing field width and increasing tumor motion amplitude, but was not affected by rotation period. The plans with the smallest field width of 1 cm have required motion margins approximately equal to the amplitude of motion (± 25%), while those with the largest field width of 5 cm had required motion margins approximately equal to 20% of the motion amplitude (± 20%). For tumor motion amplitudes below 6 mm and field widths above 1 cm, the required additional motion margins were very small, at a maximum of 2.5 mm for sinusoidal breathing patterns and 1.2 mm for the real patient breathing pattern.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".