MO‐E‐BRE‐01: Determination, Minimization and Communication of Uncertainties in Radiation Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical Physicists have a general understanding of uncertainties in the radiation treatment process, both with respect to dosimetry and geometry. However, there is a desire to be more quantitative about uncertainty estimation. A recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report (about to be published) recommends that we should be as “accurate as reasonably achievable, technical and biological factors being taken into account”. Thus, a single recommendation as a goal for accuracy in radiation therapy is an oversimplification. That report also suggests that individual clinics should determine their own level of uncertainties for their specific treatment protocols. The question is “how do we implement this in clinical practice”? AAPM Monograph 35 (2011 AAPM Summer School) addressed many specific aspects of uncertainties in each of the steps of a course of radiation treatment. The intent of this symposium is: (1) to review uncertainty considerations in the entire radiation treatment process including uncertainty determination for each step and uncertainty propagation for the total process, (2) to consider aspects of robust optimization which optimizes treatment plans while protecting them against uncertainties, and (3) to describe various methods of displaying uncertainties and communicating uncertainties to the relevant professionals. While the theoretical and research aspects will also be described, the emphasis will be on the practical considerations for the medical physicist in clinical practice. Learning Objectives: To review uncertainty determination in the overall radiation treatment process. To consider uncertainty modeling and uncertainty propagation. To highlight the basic ideas and clinical potential of robust optimization procedures to generate optimal treatment plans that are not severely affected by uncertainties. To describe methods of uncertainty communication and display.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".