Poster — Thur Eve — 41: Effect of beam symmetry on enhanced dynamic wedge quality assurance and tolerance levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wedged fields are common in three dimensional conformal radiation therapy and require appropriate quality assurance (QA). Currently, our centre calculates the angle of enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) deliveries with the PROFILER at a monthly frequency but Canadian guidelines on the recommended QA of enhanced dynamic wedges are not available yet. TG-142 recommendations include monthly validation of the central axis wedge factors with only annual verification of wedge profiles. Our monthly QA results have demonstrated a sensitivity of the calculated EDW angle to open beam symmetry. The goal of this work is to compare wedge angle and direct profile comparison as QA measures of EDW delivery and determine appropriate parameter tolerances. The impact of open field symmetry variations on EDW profiles was determined by varying beam symmetry with a test potentiometer and measuring the resulting EDW beam profile with the PROFILER. A calculated wedge angle and direct profile comparison were used to describe the deviations in EDW deliveries. The impact of the deviations on typical plans incorporating wedged fields was evaluated by constructing 'equivalent wedges' to the profile deviations using mixed 60 degree and open field beams and performing plan comparisons in Eclipse. Beam symmetry was observed to have a significant impact on wedge angle for small angle wedges, with a 1% symmetry tolerance allowing a 3.4 degree range of wedge angles for a nominal 10 degree wedge. Direct profile comparison allows a more consistent definition of a dose based tolerance range to be applied without angle dependent tolerances.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".