MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1977772855 · doi:10.1118/1.4740148

Poster — Thur Eve — 40: Dynamic arc sliding window tests for checking MLC gap consistency in rapid arc delivery

2012· article· en· W1977772855 on OpenAlexaff
X Mei, Jarosław Konieczny, K Leszczynsky

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsEssar Steel Algoma (Canada)Northeast Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArc (geometry)Imaging phantomSliding window protocolConsistency (knowledge bases)PhysicsArc lampNuclear medicineOpticsMaterials scienceMathematicsComputer scienceWindow (computing)MedicineGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MLC gap control is critical for dosimetric accuracy in rotational IMRT (RapidArc, VMAT) treatments. Systematic MLC gap change of 1 mm may cause 3-4% change of EUD to PTV for a typical H&N RapidArc plan. Therefore it is important to monitor MLC gap through QC procedures. For this purpose, we have created dynamic arc sliding window (SW) plans with fixed width MLC slits sliding across a jaw defined field. Plans with MLC slit widths of 5, 10, 15, and 20 mm, respectively, and the same length of 20 cm (in Y direction) were created with 6MV photons in a single arc of gantry angles from 182° to 178°. Dose delivered from these SW plans was measured using an ion chamber in a cylindrical phantom placed at isocentre, and values for dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) were derived based on relative dose measurements. DLG measured in dynamic arc SW tests agrees with that measured in fixed gantry angle SW fields to within 0.02 mm. We also extracted the MLC leaf gaps during MLC travels in these dynamic arc SW deliveries from MLC positions recorded in dynalog files, and compared to the MLC gaps in fixed gantry SW fields. We found that MLC leaf gaps were maintained excellently constant whether in dynamic arc or fixed gantry angle SW delivery, with typical standard deviation of MLC gaps of only ∼0.01mm for all involved leaf pairs. We believe these dynamic arc SW tests are very useful for checking MLC leaf constancy for RapidArc delivery.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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