MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1989008914 · doi:10.1118/1.4814596

SU‐E‐T‐161: Assessment of Phantom Positioning Accuracy in IMRT Quality Assurance: Insert Design and Implementation

2013· article· en· W1989008914 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrea McNiven, D. Létourneau

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomQuality assurancePosition (finance)Orientation (vector space)Translation (biology)Nuclear medicineImage resolutionImage qualityComputer sciencePhysicsOpticsComputer visionMathematicsMedicineImage (mathematics)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: A multi‐centre program for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) has previously been established. In this work, a phantom insert has been designed, in conjunction with an image analysis algorithm, to determine phantom positioning accuracy as part of program development. Methods: An insert was designed for the ArcCheck phantom that includes four BBs (located outside the sensitive area of the phantom) that are visualized using portal images (PI). A procedure has been developed to acquire PI at 8 gantry angles (2 field sizes per angle) for offline analysis. The image analysis method includes three steps: 1) cross correlation analysis is used to automatically detect the BB position with respect to the radiation isocentre in each PI; 2) 2D BB coordinates are reconstructed to 3D using the projected images; 3) the phantom positioning accuracy is obtained by a 3D rigid body transformation analysis of the BB coordinates. To evaluate the reliability of the image analysis method, the PI procedure was completed with the phantom aligned to the lasers (reference position) and with known shifts in phantom position (translational and rotational). Results: The measured change in phantom position, was compared to the known phantom shifts. Good agreement was found between the measured shift and known shift (within 0.2 mm or 0.2°). For the most complicated shift applied (5° yaw, 3 mm lateral translation and 4 mm vertical translation) the agreement was within 0.1° and 0.1 mm for rotations and translations respectively. Conclusion: A phantom insert has been designed to determine the accuracy of phantom positioning with respect to the radiation isocenter. Initial work illustrates that the analysis method can accurately characterize known positioning errors, which will help to isolate the impact of phantom misalignment in the context of IMRT QA. Supported in part by Cancer Care Ontario

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.381 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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