MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2000302385 · doi:10.1118/1.4813999

SU-D-105-03: Developing QA Procedures for Gated VMAT SABR Treatments

2013· article· en· W2000302385 on OpenAlexaffabout
Francis Viel, Ermias Gete, Cheryl Duzenli, R Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSABR volatility modelTruebeamImaging phantomNuclear medicineBreathingLinear particle acceleratorGatingIonization chamberMedicineBiomedical engineeringPhysicsBeam (structure)OpticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To develop a QA procedure for gated VMAT SABR liver cancer treatments and investigate the gating parameters for acceptable plan delivery in terms of the dose to a moving volume and treatment delivery time. Methods: 10 patient plans for VMAT SABR liver were created using the Eclipse™ TPS. The verification plans were then transferred to a CT-scanned Quasar™ phantom and delivered on a TrueBeam™ linac using a 10FFF beam and Varian's RPM system for respiratory gating. Two kinds of breathing patterns were used: free breathing (FB) and an interrupted (∼5s pause) end of exhale coached breathing (CB) pattern. Ion chamber and Gafchromic™ film measurements were acquired for a gated delivery while the phantom moved under the described breathing patterns and a non-gated, stationary phantom delivery. The gate window was set to obtain a range of residual target motion from 2–10 mm. Results: Preliminary chamber measurements indicate that the dose to the center of the PTV can vary considerably under gated delivery compared to the static case. The effect can be significant for free breathing; ∼4–12% over the selected range of residual target motion. The agreement was more consistent with CB pattern at ∼1–4%. Gamma analysis (3%, 3mm) showed an agreement above 99.74% for all gated deliveries compared to the static delivery. The treatment time with a gate width of 2 mm was ∼265s for the CB pattern compared to ∼740s under a typical FB pattern. A non-gated delivery of the same plan took ∼100s. Conclusion: Gated VMAT treatments have been delivered successfully to a motorized phantom. FB patterns contain considerable variability and it is difficult to achieve acceptable results even with very small gate windows. However, a CB pattern combined with a sufficiently small gate, resulted in acceptable dose distributions that can be delivered in a reasonable amount of time. Francis Viel received funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. This work has been supported by the Varian Research Collaborations Program.

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)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.303
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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→