Results from a multicenter prostate IMRT dosimetry intercomparison for an OCOG‐TROG clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A multi-institution dosimetry intercomparison has been undertaken of prostate intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivery. The dosimetry intercomparison was incorporated into the quality assurance for site credentialing for the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group Prostate Fractionated Irradiation Trial 08.01 clinical trial. METHODS: An anthropomorphic pelvic phantom with realistic anatomy was used along with multiplanar dosimetry tools for the assessment. Nineteen centers across Australia and New Zealand participated in the study. RESULTS: In comparing planned versus measured dose to the target at the isocenter within the phantom, all centers were able to achieve a total delivered dose within 3% of planned dose. In multiplanar analysis with radiochromic film using the gamma analysis method to compare delivered and planned dose, pass rates for a 5%/3 mm criterion were better than 90% for a coronal slice through the isocenter. Pass rates for an off-axis coronal slice were also better than 90% except for one instance with 84% pass rate. CONCLUSIONS: Strengths of the dosimetry assessment procedure included the true anthropomorphic nature of the phantom used, the involvement of an expert from the reference center in carrying out the assessment at every site, and the ability of the assessment to detect and resolve dosimetry discrepancies.
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 | 0.033 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".