MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2006293728 · doi:10.1118/1.3476123

Poster — Thur Eve — 18: Differential Dose‐Volume Histogram Modeling Using the Gaussian Error Function

2010· article· en· W2006293728 on OpenAlexaff
J Chow, Daniel Markel, Ran Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiducial markerProstateNuclear medicineProstate cancerRadiation treatment planningMedicineHistogramDosimetryRadiation therapyDose-volume histogramComputer scienceRadiologyArtificial intelligenceCancerImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Gaussian error function (GEF) was first used to model rectal differential dose‐volume histograms (dDVH) for prostate intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans incorporated with the interfraction prostate motion. Seven‐beam IMRT treatment plans were created in three patients with small (40 cm3), medium (53 cm3) and large (87 cm3) prostate volume, selected from a group of 20 patients. The interfraction prostate motions were measured by comparing the digitally‐reconstructed radiographs (anterior and lateral views) from the original treatment plans to the corresponding daily electronic portal images in the treatment unit based on the implanted fiducial gold markers. The ranges of prostate motion were found to be 8 – 2 mm, 4 – 8 mm and 4 – 3 mm along the anterior‐posterior directions for the small, medium and large prostate patient, respectively. Rectal dDVH varying with the interfraction prostate motion were determined by the treatment planning system (TPS), and modeled by the GEF for the three patients. It was found that the rectal dDVH from the prostate plans modeled by the GEF agreed well with those calculated by the TPS. The successful modeling of dDVH results in a significant reduction of the dDVH database, because typically about 12 parameters of the GEF model can be used to substitute about 800 – 1000 dose‐volume bin set for each dDVH. This can greatly reduce the computer memory in the normal tissue complication probability calculation associated with a huge dDVH database.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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