MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2023405223 · doi:10.1118/1.2962449

TU‐C‐AUD C‐03: Teletherapy MicroRT Using a Commercial 192Ir Source

2008· article· en· W2023405223 on OpenAlexaff
D Low, Enrique W. Izaguirre, Joseph O. Deasy, Sasa Mutic, Andrew Hope, Strahinja Stojadinović, X Diao, Perry W. Grigsby

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollimatorFiducial markerComputer scienceScannerRadiationIsocenterOpticsNuclear medicinePhysicsImaging phantomComputer visionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prototype small‐animal irradiator (microRT) developed at Washington University utilizes the commercial 192Ir high‐dose rate (HDR) remote afterloader source in a teletherapy geometry. The system consists of a set of four Tungsten collimators (5.5 mm diameter hole) mounted to an Aluminum support tube. An HDR catheter is used to transport the source to the collimator and pre‐determined dwell positions center the source at the collimator hole. The mouse is placed on a couch that contains a series of drilled holes that act as fiducial localization marks visible on computed tomography (CT) imaging. For most experiments, the mouse is first anesthetized and placed on a couch. The couch is imaged using a commercial CT scanner (spatial resolution approximately 0.6 mm). The couch geometry is automatically registered in the treatment planning software, which was written in the Computational Environment for Radiotherapy Research (CERR) platform. The treatment planner determines the dose and adjusts the source‐to‐target distance to achieve the required field size and the target dose, coupled with the source strength, determines the irradiation time. The couch is mounted to a computer‐controlled three‐dimensional stage that positions the mouse to submillimeter accuracy. Advantages of the system include its relatively high precision, low fabrication cost, and straightforward and robust operation. Disadvantages include the need for having a commercial HDR source and the associated complexities of scheduling experiments, the relatively poor penumbra, and the steep depth‐dose behavior. The system works very well for parallel‐opposed fields to either the whole brain or hemi‐brain, and tumors grown on the mouse flank.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→