WE-A-17A-08: Evaluation of the OncentraBrachy Collapsed Cone Convolution Algorithm for Ir-192 Source Using Phantom and Real-Patient Heterogeneous Geometries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the commercially released Collapsed Cone convolution-based(CCC) dose calculation module of the Elekta OncentraBrachy(OcB) treatment planning system(TPS). Methods: An allwater phantom was used to perform TG43 benchmarks with single source and seventeen sources, separately. Furthermore, four real-patient heterogeneous geometries (chestwall, lung, breast and prostate) were used. They were selected based on their clinical representativity of a class of clinical anatomies that pose clear challenges. The plans were used as is(no modification). For each case, TG43 and CCC calculations were performed in the OcB TPS, with TG186-recommended materials properly assigned to ROIs. For comparison, Monte Carlo simulation was run for each case with the same material scheme and grid mesh as TPS calculations. Both modes of CCC (standard and high quality) were tested. Results: For the benchmark case, the CCC dose, when divided by that of TG43, yields hot-n-cold spots in a radial pattern. The pattern of the high mode is denser than that of the standard mode and is representative of angular dicretization. The total deviation ((hot-cold)/TG43) is 18% for standard mode and 11% for high mode. Seventeen dwell positions help to reduce “ray-effect”, with the total deviation to 6% (standard) and 5% (high), respectively. For the four patient cases, CCC produces, as expected, more realistic dose distributions than TG43. A close agreement was observed between CCC and MC for all isodose lines, from 20% and up; the 10% isodose line of CCC appears shifted compared to that of MC. The DVH plots show dose deviations of CCC from MC in small volume, high dose regions (>100% isodose). For patient cases, the difference between standard and high modes is almost undiscernable. Conclusion: OncentraBrachy CCC algorithm marks a significant dosimetry improvement relative to TG43 in real-patient cases. Further researches are recommended regarding the clinical implications of the above observations. Support provided by a CIHR grant and CCC system provided by Elekta-Nucletron
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".