A combined dose calculation and verification method for a small animal precision irradiator based on onboard imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Novel small animal precision microirradiators (micro-IR) are becoming available for preclinical use and are often equipped with onboard imaging (OBI) devices. We investigated the use of OBI as a means to infer the accuracy of the delivered treatment plan. METHODS: Monte Carlo modeling of the micro-IR including an elliptical Gaussian electron beam incident on the x-ray tube was used to score dose and to continue photon transport to the plane of the OBI device. A model of the OBI detector response was used to generate simulated onboard images. Experimental OBI was performed at 225 kVp, gain∕offset and scatter-glare were corrected. Simulated and experimentally obtained onboard images of phantoms and a mouse specimen were compared for a range of photon beam sizes from 2.5 cm down to 0.1 cm. RESULTS: Simulated OBI can be used in small animal radiotherapy to determine if a treatment plan was delivered according to the prescription within an uncertainty of 5% for beams as small as 4 mm in diameter. For collimated beams smaller than 4 mm, beam profile differences remain primarily in the penumbra region of the smallest beams, which may be tolerable for specific preclinical micro-IR investigations. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing simulated to acquired OBI during small animal treatment radiotherapy represents a useful treatment delivery tool.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".