Decision‐making models in the analysis of portal films: A clinical pilot study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portal films continue to play an important role in the verification of radiotherapy treatment. There is still some discussion, however, as to what action should be taken after a port film has shown a radiation field deviation from the prescribed volume. It was the aim of the present pilot study to investigate the performance of three decision-making models ('Amsterdam', 'Quebec' and 'Newcastle') and an expert panel basing their decision on intuition rather than formal rules after portal film acquisition in a clinical setting. Portal films were acquired on every day during the first week of treatment for five head and neck and five prostate cancer patients (diagnostic phase). If required, the field position was modified according to our normal practice following the recommendation of the expert panel. In order to analyse the results of the models, however, additional port films were taken in the following 3 treatment weeks with the patient moved as required by the different models (intervention phase). The portal films were taken over 4 consecutive days, positioning the patient according to each of the different models on one day each. None of the models diagnosed a field misplacement in the head and neck patients, while the 'Amsterdam' and 'Quebec' models predicted a move in one prostate patient. The 'Newcastle' model, which is based on Hotelling's T2 statistic, proved to be more sensitive and diagnosed a systematic displacement for three prostate patients. The intervention phase confirmed the diagnosis of the model, even if the three portal films taken with the patient position adjusted as required by the model proved to be insufficient to demonstrate an improvement. The 'Newcastle' model does not rely on assumptions about the random movement of patients and requires five portal films before a decision can be reached. This approach lends itself well to incorporation into electronic portal imaging 'packages', where repeated image acquisitions present no logistical difficulty.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 it