MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998300122 · doi:10.1118/1.4802735

First demonstration of intrafractional tumor‐tracked irradiation using 2D phantom MR images on a prototype linac‐MR

2013· article· en· W1998300122 on OpenAlexaff
Jihyun Yun, Keith Wachowicz, M. Mackenzie, S Rathee, Don Robinson, B. G. Fallone

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomLinear particle acceleratorNuclear medicinePhysicsMultileaf collimatorCollimatorTracking (education)DosimetryRadiation therapyBeam (structure)IsocenterCollimated lightMatch movingOpticsMotion (physics)MedicineRadiologyLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To demonstrate intrafractional MR tumor tracking using a prototype linac-MR by delivering radiation to a moving target undergoing simulated tumor motions. METHODS: A prototype linac-MR at the Cross Cancer Institute was used for intrafractional MR imaging and simultaneous beam delivery. A Varian 52-leaf MK-II multileaf collimator (MLC) was used for beam collimation. The authors used an inhouse built MR compatible motion phantom to simulate tumor motions during tracking with two different motion patterns (sine and modified cosine). Gafchromic film was inserted in the phantom to measure radiation exposure, and this film measurement was converted to dose (cGy) for further analysis. The authors demonstrated intrafractional tracking in various scenarios: [Scenario 0 (S0)] no phantom motion + no beam margin, (S1) no phantom motion + maximum beam margin, (S2) phantom motion + no beam margin, (S3) S2 + MLC tracking, and (S4) S3 + motion prediction. S0 emulates a perfect tumor tracking scenario, and its result was used as a "gold-standard" to evaluate tracking accuracy from other scenarios. The authors compared (1) time difference in phantom and MLC motion curves in S3 and S4, and (2) dose profiles (50% beam width, 80%-20% penumbra width) from scenarios S1-S4 to S0. RESULTS: In S4, no observable time difference exists between the phantom and MLC motion curves, indicating that MLC tracks phantom motion accurately. Comparing S4 to S0, 50% beam width reveals minimal differences of < 0.5 mm, while the increase in 80%-20% penumbra width is limited to 0.4 and 1.7 mm in the sine and modified cosine patterns, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The authors report the first demonstration of intrafractional tumor tracking using 2D MR images. During 2 min of tracking, the authors delivered highly conformal dose to a moving target that simulates tumor motions. Compared to static target irradiation, the 50% beam width remains essentially the same (within 0.5 mm), with an increase in 80%-20% penumbra width of less than 1.7 mm in moving target irradiation. These results illustrate potential dosimetric advantages of intrafractional MR tumor tracking in treating mobile tumors as shown for the phantom case.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations73
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207