Novel, full 3D scintillation dosimetry using a static plenoptic camera
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of dynamic radiotherapy delivery would gain from being performed using a 3D dosimeter. However, 3D dosimeters, such as gels, have many disadvantages limiting to quality assurance, such as tedious read-out procedures and poor reproducibility. The purpose of this work is to develop and validate a novel type of high resolution 3D dosimeter based on the real-time light acquisition of a plastic scintillator volume using a plenoptic camera. This dosimeter would allow for the QA of dynamic radiation therapy techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS: A Raytrix R5 plenoptic camera was used to image a 10 × 10 × 10 cm(3) EJ-260 plastic scintillator embedded inside an acrylic phantom at a rate of one acquisition per second. The scintillator volume was irradiated with both an IMRT and VMAT treatment plan on a Clinac iX linear accelerator. The 3D light distribution emitted by the scintillator volume was reconstructed at a 2 mm resolution in all dimensions by back-projecting the light collected by each pixel of the light-field camera using an iterative reconstruction algorithm. The latter was constrained by a beam's eye view projection of the incident dose acquired using the portal imager integrated with the linac and by physical consideration of the dose behavior as a function of depth in the phantom. RESULTS: The absolute dose difference between the reconstructed 3D dose and the expected dose calculated using the treatment planning software Pinnacle(3) was on average below 1.5% of the maximum dose for both integrated IMRT and VMAT deliveries, and below 3% for each individual IMRT incidences. Dose agreement between the reconstructed 3D dose and a radiochromic film acquisition in the same experimental phantom was on average within 2.1% and 1.2% of the maximum recorded dose for the IMRT and VMAT delivery, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using plenoptic camera technology, the authors were able to perform millimeter resolution, water-equivalent dosimetry of an IMRT and VMAT plan over a whole 3D volume. Since no moving parts are required in the dosimeter, the incident dose distribution can be acquired as a function of time, thus enabling the validation of static and dynamic radiation delivery with photons, electrons, and heavier ions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".