MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023042056 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/51/17/n02

Measurement for the MLC leaf velocity profile by considering the leaf leakage using a radiographic film

2006· article· en· W2023042056 on OpenAlexaff
James C. L. Chow, Grigor N. Grigorov

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsGrand River HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WaterlooUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollimatorLeakage (economics)RadiographyEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionOpticsLine (geometry)Consistency (knowledge bases)Materials scienceNuclear medicineMathematicsPhysicsMedicineComputer scienceGeometryRadiologyComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method to measure the velocity profile of a multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf along its travel range using a radiographic film is reported by considering the intra-leaf leakage. A specific dynamic MLC field with leaves travelling from the field edge to the isocentre line was designed. The field was used to expose a radiographic film, which was then scanned, and the dose profile along the horizontal leaf axis was measured. The velocity at a sampling point on the film can be calculated by considering the horizontal distance between the sampling point and the isocentre line, dose at the sampling point, dose rate of the linear accelerator, the total leaf travel time from the field edge to isocentre line and the pre-measured dose rate of leaf leakage. With the leaf velocities and velocity profiles for all MLC leaves measured routinely, a comprehensive and simple QA for the MLC can be set up to test the consistency of the leaf velocity performance which is essential to the IMRT delivery using a sliding window technique.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.139 · 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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Sensor Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207