SU‐C‐BRD‐07: The Radiological Physics Center (RPC): 45 Years of Improving Radiotherapy Dosimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The RPC, established in 1968 has contributed to the development, conduct, and QA of NCI funded multi‐institutional cooperative group clinical trials and institutions, primarily in the USA/Canada and 242 other countries, participating in trials. Methods: The RPC QA program components were designed to audit the radiation dose calculation chain from the NIST traceable reference beam calibration, to inclusion of dosimetry parameters used to calculate tumor doses, to the delivery of the radiation dose. The QA program included: 1) remote TLD/OSLD audit of machine output, 2) on‐site dosimetry review visits, 3) credentialing for advanced technologies, and 4) review of patient treatment records. The RPC presented and published their findings to the radiation oncology community. Results: The number of institutions monitored by the RPC increased from around 1200 in the late 90s, to ∼2000 in 2013. There were over 4000 megavoltage therapy machines and ∼28,000 therapy beams in the 1991 institutions monitored by the RPC by the end of 2013. Within the 14,000 photon, electron and proton beam outputs remotely monitored with TLD/OSLD annually, between 10‐20% of the institutions have one or more beams outside the RPC 5% criterion. Dosimetry site visits to photon and proton centers continue to result in 2‐4 recommendations affecting key dosimetry parameters that impact patient treatment times. One in four patient treatment records reviewed by the RPC have their dose data corrected by >5% before trial groups use them for outcomes analysis. Twelve of fourteen clinically active proton centers are approved to participate in NCI funded clinical trials. The RPC published 222 peer reviewed articles since 1972. Conclusion: Findings from the RPC suggest that human errors continue to play a role in radiotherapy discrepancies and without the RPC independent QA program, the number of undetected errors and time elapsed before their discovery would have been greater. Work supported by MGH C06 CA059267 and grants CA10953, CA081647 awarded by NCI, DHHS.
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 | 0.038 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".