MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1989823900 · doi:10.1118/1.4740087

Sci-Thur AM: Planning - 02: Validation of XiO's eMC module using Gafchromic EBT3 films and triple channel dosimetry

2012· article· en· W1989823900 on OpenAlexaff
L Archambault, E. P. Münger, Sam Nicol, M Brunet‐Benkhoucha

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodImaging phantomDosimetryVoxelRadiation treatment planningNuclear medicineComputer sciencePhysicsMaterials scienceMedical physicsOpticsMedicineMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligenceRadiologyRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to validate the electron Monte Carlo module implemented in XiO, a treatment planning system commercialized by Elekta CMS inc. Two types of phantoms were investigated: homogeneous water phantoms with irregular surfaces and phantoms containing slab and 3D heterogeneities. The phantoms were CT scanned, and dose to water calculations were performed in the eMC module using 2 ×2 × 2 mm2 voxels and a mean relative statistical uncertainty of 0.5%. Concurrently, Gafchromic EBT3 film measurements were performed in the same phantoms. To obtain reliable absolute dose readings from the films, a new method using triple channel dosimetry in the Film QA Pro software was developed. The accuracy of the proposed method was determined empirically and an uncertainty of ±1.5% was found over the range [75, 800] cGy. Dose comparisons between film and simulations were done using an in-house MATLAB program. XiO's eMC module provides accurate dose distributions in the presence of surface irregularities and slab heterogeneities for 12 MeV beams. In the presence of 3D heterogeneities, the percent dose difference comparisons highlighted the need to perform 3D gamma comparisons. In conclusion, the electron Monte Carlo module offered in the XiO treatment planning system is promising and could greatly improve the accuracy of clinical dose calculations. The validation of the software is ongoing, notably concerning more complex phantom geometries. Small field calculations, oblique incidences and cutout factors will also be investigated.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · 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→