Poster — Thur Eve — 56: Verification of buildup region dose calculation of a treatment planning system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buildup region dose calculation of Pinnacle3 (version 9.0), a treatment planning system (TPS) commissioned using cylindrical ionization chamber measurements, have been verified experimentally. Dose values measured using Attix parallel plate ionization chamber were compared with those calculated by Pinnacle3 for a variety of clinical setups involving: 6 MV and 15 MV photon beams, open fields, enhanced dynamic wedges, physical wedges, block tray, 85, 100 and 120 cm source‐to‐surface distances, and square field sizes ranging from 3 × 3 to 30 × 30 cm2. The dose difference (DD) and distance‐to‐agreement (DTA) techniques were used to evaluate the discrepancy between measured and calculated dose values. Based on the criteria of DD less than 2% or DTA less than 2mm, 93.7% of 1,710 dose points for the 6 MV and 96.1% of 2,244 dose points for 15 MV passed. Dose points that failed were mostly for open fields, block tray fields, and physical wedges (15 and 30 degrees) fields; this is attributed to high electron contamination (EC) associated with these fields. The levels of discrepancies between measured and calculated dose values were greatly reduced after remodeling the EC in Pinnacle3 using Attix chamber measurements, an indication that the EC equation in Pinnacle3 may be adequate for modeling EC in the dose buildup region, and the commissioning of a TPS using cylindrical ionization chamber measurements may not provide accurate buildup region dose calculation. Attix chamber measurements were validated using GafChromic EBT2 film; the disagreement was less than 3% for 89.9% of dose values compared.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
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".