Limitations of a convolution method for modeling geometric uncertainties in radiation therapy. I. The effect of shift invariance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Convolution methods have been used to model the effect of geometric uncertainties on dose delivery in radiation therapy. Convolution assumes shift invariance of the dose distribution. Internal inhomogeneities and surface curvature lead to violations of this assumption. The magnitude of the error resulting from violation of shift invariance is not well documented. This issue is addressed by comparing dose distributions calculated using the Convolution method with dose distributions obtained by Direct Simulation. A comparison of conventional Static dose distributions was also made with Direct Simulation. This analysis was performed for phantom geometries and several clinical tumor sites. A modification to the Convolution method to correct for some of the inherent errors is proposed and tested using example phantoms and patients. We refer to this modified method as the Corrected Convolution. The average maximum dose error in the calculated volume (averaged over different beam arrangements in the various phantom examples) was 21% with the Static dose calculation, 9% with Convolution, and reduced to 5% with the Corrected Convolution. The average maximum dose error in the calculated volume (averaged over four clinical examples) was 9% for the Static method, 13% for Convolution, and 3% for Corrected Convolution. While Convolution can provide a superior estimate of the dose delivered when geometric uncertainties are present, the violation of shift invariance can result in substantial errors near the surface of the patient. The proposed Corrected Convolution modification reduces errors near the surface to 3% or less.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".