MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1989598672 · doi:10.1118/1.4889024

SU‐E‐CAMPUS‐J‐04: Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT): Review of Technical Standards and Credentialing in Radiotherapy Clinical Trials

2014· article· en· W1989598672 on OpenAlexaff
T Giaddui, Yunfeng Cui, W Chen, J. Yu, Y Gong, Tim Craig, Laura A. Dawson, Hania Al‐Hallaq, Steven J. Chmura, F Yin, James M. Galvin, Ying Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredentialingImage-guided radiation therapyMedicineMedical physicsQuality assuranceRadiation therapyRadiologyMedical educationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To review IGRT credentialing experience and unexpected technical issues encountered in connection with advanced radiotherapy technologies as implemented in RTOG clinical trials. To update IGRT credentialing procedures with the aim of improving the quality of the process, and to increase the proportion of IGRT credentialing compliance. To develop a living disease site‐specific IGRT encyclopedia. Methods: Numerous technical issues were encountered during the IGRT credentialing process. The criteria used for credentialing review were based on: image quality; anatomy included in fused data sets and shift results. Credentialing requirements have been updated according to the AAPM task group reports for IGRT to ensure that all required technical items are included in the quality review process. Implementation instructions have been updated and expanded for recent protocols. Results: Technical issues observed during the credentialing review process include, but are not limited to: poor quality images; inadequate image acquisition region; poor data quality; shifts larger than acceptable; no soft tissue surrogate. The updated IGRT credentialing process will address these issues and will also include the technical items required from AAPM: TG 104; TG 142 and TG 179 reports. An instruction manual has been developed describing a remote credentialing method for reviewers. Submission requirements are updated, including images/documents as well as facility questionnaire. The review report now includes summary of the review process and the parameters that reviewers check. We have reached consensus on the minimum IGRT technical requirement for a number of disease sites. RTOG 1311(NRG‐BR002A Phase 1 Study of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for the Treatment of Multiple Metastases) is an example, here; the protocol specified the minimum requirement for each anatomical sites (with/without fiducials). Conclusion: Technical issues are identified and reported. IGRT guidelines are updated, with the corresponding credentialing requirements. An IGRT encyclopedia describing site‐specific implementation issues is currently in development.

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)0.182
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.304
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1820.304
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.007

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.399 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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