Poster — Thurs Eve‐39: Full 3D dose calculation for total body irradiation: A comparison study between treatment planning systems in homogeneous and heterogeneous conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To perform full 3D heterogeneous dose calculations for total body irradiation (TBI) cases and compare different treatment planning softwares (TPS). Method: A retrospective study was performed on 7 patients. Dose distributions obtained with Pinnacle3 v.7.9u (Philips Medical Systems) were compared with the ones calculated using our actual TBI planning system Theraplan Plus (TPP) by MDS Nordion/Nucletron. Two different Pinnacle3 models were studied: standard beam commissioning (std_Pinnacle3) and TBI commissioning (TBI_Pinnacle3). For the later case, commissioning was adapted for the special TBI conditions (extended SSD of 190cm, large field, acrylic beam spoiler, and out of field dose (OFD)). Results: Significant differences are found between the TPP, std_Pinnacle3 and TBI_Pinnacle3 dose distributions. For the relative mid‐line doses, differences up to 12% were observed. Systematic overestimations of 5% were found in patients extremities between TPP and TBI_Pinnacle3. Average dose underestimation of 3% was observed between std_Pinnacle3 and TBI_Pinnacle3. Differences in patient extremities are attributed to the OFD contribution which is not correctly computed in TPP and std_Pinnacle3. Dose comparison outside the patient's mid‐line showed greater differences (up to 20%) between models. Accurate 3D heterogeneous dose calculations with TBI_Pinnacle3 model show major differences (homogeneous versus heterogeneous) in high and low density regions. Dose overestimation of 5% was observed in bony regions and dose underestimation of 5% to 10% was observed in lung regions. Conclusion: Those results are of major interest since they show a strong dependence of the dose calculation outcome on both TPS and commissioning used, potentially leading to significant dose misevaluation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".