MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1972140752 · doi:10.1118/1.2965911

Sci-Thurs PM: Delivery-04: Comprehensive fluence model for absolute portal dose image prediction in IMRT pre-treatment verification

2008· article· en· W1972140752 on OpenAlexaff
K Chytyk, Boyd McCurdy

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluenceImage-guided radiation therapyMonte Carlo methodDosimetryOpticsCollimatorNuclear medicineMedical imagingMaterials sciencePhysicsComputer scienceMathematicsMedicineArtificial intelligenceLaserStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amorphous silicon (a-Si) electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) have been heavily investigated as treatment verification tools, with a particular focus on intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This verification could be accomplished through a comparison of measured portal images to predicted images. A general fluence determination for portal dose image prediction would be a great asset in order to model the complex modulation of IMRT. A physically-based parameter fluence model was developed by matching multi-leaf collimator defined predicted images to measured image profiles. The fluence model was composed of a focal Gaussian and extrafocal Gaussian-like source (Pearson VII). Specific aspects of the MLCs and secondary collimators were also modeled (eg. jaw and MLC transmission factors, MLC rounded leaf tips, tongue and groove effect, interleaf leakage, MLC offsets). The resulting calculated fluence was then convolved with Monte Carlo generated EPID-specific dose kernels to convert incident fluence to dose delivered to the EPID. Measured EPID data was obtained with an a-Si EPID for various MLC-defined fields (1×1 to 20×20 cm2) over a range of source-to-imager distances. These measured profiles were used to determine the fluence model parameters and the resulting model was tested on prostate and oropharyngeal IMRT fields. The model predicted the open-field profiles within 2%, 2mm, while the predicted IMRT fields were generally within 3%, 3mm for at least 96% of the pixels. This model demonstrates the necessary accuracy needed for IMRT portal dose image prediction in complex clinical examples (<3%, 3mm) and could be used for pre-treatment verification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→