MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2019199220 · doi:10.1118/1.2030984

Po-Poster - 05: An evaluation of treatment dose error due to beam attenuation from a carbon fiber table top

2005· article· en· W2019199220 on OpenAlexaff
K Myint, M Niedbala, David E. Wilkins, L Gerig

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsOttawa Regional Cancer FoundationOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomAttenuationRadiation treatment planningTable (database)Absorption (acoustics)Materials scienceMedical physicsComputer scienceOpticsNuclear medicineRadiation therapyMedicinePhysicsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of carbon fiber materials for use in radiation therapy was largely due to its high mechanical strength, low specific density, and its perceived radio-translucence. These characteristics made it an ideal material for the patient support assembly utilized during treatments. Modern radiation therapy commonly employs beams delivered at oblique angles. With the introduction of carbon fiber table tops the attenuation of the couch is often ignored during treatment planning and there is little effort to avoid intersection of the beam with the table during patient setup. The perception that carbon fiber is relatively radio-translucent has permitted it to be used while neglecting to consider the effects it may have on the dose to the patient. In this study we have measured the attenuation of the couch under various conditions for 6 and 18 MV photons. We have found dose reductions in phantom of greater than 7%. We further investigate the ability of a commercial treatment planning system (Theraplan Plus) to properly model this effect during the planning stage. Our results show that incorporating the carbon fiber couch in the patient model reduces the dose error to less than 2%. These results reveal that it is worthwhile addressing this real clinical problem in such a manner that it can be routinely considered for all patient treatments. Thus, practical suggestions are proposed for the incorporation of the treatment tabletop into patient treatment planning dose calculations.

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)0.003
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.305 · 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→