Poster — Thur Eve — 35: The impact of intensity‐ and energy‐modulated photon radiotherapy (XMRT) optimization on a variety of organ geometries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We previously reported on a novel, modulated in both energy and intensity; photon radiotherapy (XMRT) optimization technique. The purpose of this investigation was to test this XMRT optimization against conventional intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) optimization on four different organ test geometries. All geometries mimicked clinically relevant scenarios. Both IMRT and XMRT were based on a linear programming approach where the objective function was the mean dose to healthy organs and organ‐specific linear dose‐point constraints were used. For IMRT, the beam energy was fixed to 6 MV while XMRT optimized in terms of both 6 and 18 MV beams. All plans consisted of a seven beam coplanar arrangement. All organ geometries were contoured on a 25cm diameter cylindrical water phantom in open source radiotherapy research software known as CERR. Solutions for both IMRT and XMRT were obtained for each geometry using a numerical solver Gurobi. Analyzing the quality of the solutions was done by comparing dose distributions and dose volume histograms calculated using CERR. For all four geometries, IMRT and XMRT solutions were comparable in terms of target coverage. For two of the geometries, IMRT provided an advantage in terms of reduced dose to the healthy structures. XMRT showed improved dose reduction to healthy organs for one geometry and a comparable dose distribution to IMRT for the remaining geometry. The inability to exploit the benefits of using multiple energies may be attributed to limited water phantom diameter and having the majority of the organs in close proximity to the transverse axis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".