MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1974696972 · doi:10.1118/1.3244140

Poster — Wed Eve—36: Preliminary Results of Patient Scatter Model for EPID Dosimetry

2009· article· en· W1974696972 on OpenAlexaff
K Chytyk, BMC McCurdy

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimetryImage-guided radiation therapyImaging phantomMonte Carlo methodNuclear medicineRadiation therapyFluenceMedical imagingRadiosurgeryBeam (structure)Radiation treatment planningMedical physicsOpticsPhysicsMedicineRadiologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complex radiotherapy techniques, such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated radiation therapy (VMAT), have greatly increased the motivation for dosimetric verification of radiation therapy treatments. Pretreatment dosimetry is typically carried out prior to a patient's treatment but verification of the actual delivered treatment is not usually performed. Amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging devices (a‐Si EPIDs) have been established for IMRT verification, with one method involving the comparison of a predicted image to a measured image to determine whether the treatment field was delivered correctly. In this work, a comprehensive physics‐based parameter fluence model is interfaced with a patient scatter model to predict portal dose images. The patient scatter algorithm consists of a library of Monte Carlo calculated, scattered photon fluence kernels which predict scattered energy fluence exiting the patient or phantom. Images were acquired with an a‐Si EPID using a 6 MV beam and slab material in the beam path to test the model. Field size ranged from 1×1 to , with solid water thicknesses extending from 1 cm to 25 cm and an air gap of 40 cm. A prostate IMRT field was acquired during a patient treatment for prediction as well. Smaller fields were found to be accurately predicted within 2% and 2 mm, while larger fields were over‐predicted. The prostate field agreed within 2%, 3 mm. The model is able to accurately predict most MLC‐defined fields to within 2% and 2 mm; a prostate IMRT field has also been accurately predicted.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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