The sensitivity of patient specific IMRT QC to systematic MLC leaf bank offset errors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient specific IMRT QC is performed routinely in many clinics as a safeguard against errors and inaccuracies which may be introduced during the complex planning, data transfer, and delivery phases of this type of treatment. The purpose of this work is to evaluate the feasibility of detecting systematic errors in MLC leaf bank position with patient specific checks. METHODS: 9 head and neck (H&N) and 14 prostate IMRT beams were delivered using MLC files containing systematic offsets (+/- 1 mm in two banks, +/- 0.5 mm in two banks, and 1 mm in one bank of leaves). The beams were measured using both MAPCHECK (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL) and the aS1000 electronic portal imaging device (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). Comparisons with calculated fields, without offsets, were made using commonly adopted criteria including absolute dose (AD) difference, relative dose difference, distance to agreement (DTA), and the gamma index. RESULTS: The criteria most sensitive to systematic leaf bank offsets were the 3% AD, 3 mm DTA for MAPCHECK and the gamma index with 2% AD and 2 mm DTA for the EPID. The criterion based on the relative dose measurements was the least sensitive to MLC offsets. More highly modulated fields, i.e., H&N, showed greater changes in the percentage of passing points due to systematic MLC inaccuracy than prostate fields. CONCLUSIONS: None of the techniques or criteria tested is sufficiently sensitive, with the population of IMRT fields, to detect a systematic MLC offset at a clinically significant level on an individual field. Patient specific QC cannot, therefore, substitute for routine QC of the MLC itself.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".