MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2005976148 · doi:10.1118/1.1998306

MO‐E‐T‐617‐02: Dosimetric Evaluation of Inverse Monte Carlo‐Based Modulated Electron Beam Treatment Planning and Delivery Using a Few Leaf Electron Collimator

2005· article· en· W2005976148 on OpenAlexaff
Khalid Alyahya, M. William Schwartz, George Shenouda, Frank Verhaegen, Carolyn Freeman, Jan Seuntjens

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear medicineCollimatorRadiation treatment planningDosimetryRadiation therapyMedicineMonte Carlo methodHead and neckRadiologyMathematicsPhysicsOpticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To investigate the potential of improving the treatment planning and delivery of treatment to superficially located tumors using energy modulated electron therapy (EMET) based on inverse techniques and Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithms. This study investigates the application of EMET using a few‐leaf electron collimator (FLEC) in head & neck, sarcoma, and breast sites in comparison with three dimensional conventional radiation therapy (3D‐CRT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques. Method and Materials: Treatment planning was performed for a parotid case, a sarcoma case, and a breast case. Three Monte Carlo calculated plans were compared for each case: 3D‐CRT, IMRT, and 3D‐CRT in conjunction with EMET (EMET‐CRT). For all patients, dose volume histograms (DVHs) were obtained for organs of interest. For each plan, homogeneity and conformity indices of dose distributions, sparing index (SPIN50/10) that quantifies the conformity of the low isodose lines, and the whole‐body dose equivalent (WBDE) were analyzed. Results: Adding EMET delivered with the FLEC to 3D‐CRT preserves target conformity and dose homogeneity and improves sparing of normal tissues. For the head & neck case the mean dose to the contralateral parotid and brain decreased relative to IMRT by 43% to 84%, and by 57% to 71%, respectively. Improved normal tissue sparing is also quantified as an increase in sparing index of 47% and 30% for the head & neck and the breast cases, respectively. The WBDE for EMET‐CRT was reduced by up to 72% when compared with IMRT. Conclusion: EMET delivered with the FLEC could be a valuable addition to currently existing treatment techniques especially when applied to superficially located tumors that are inherently difficult to plan using IMRT. The addition of EMET systematically leads to a reduction in WBDE especially when compared with IMRT.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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