Random and systematic beam modulator errors in dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the dosimetric effects of random and systematic modulator errors in delivery of dynamic intensity modulated beams. A sliding-widow type delivery that utilizes a combination of multileaf collimators (MLCs) and backup diaphragms was examined. Gaussian functions with standard deviations ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 mm were used to simulate random positioning errors. A clinical example involving a clival meningioma was chosen with optic chiasm and brain stem as limiting critical structures in the vicinity of the tumour. Dose calculations for different modulator fluctuations were performed, and a quantitative analysis was carried out based on cumulative and differential dose volume histograms for the gross target volume and surrounding critical structures. The study indicated that random modulator errors have a strong tendency to reduce minimum target dose and homogeneity. Furthermore, it was shown that random perturbation of both MLCs and backup diaphragms in the order of sigma = 1 mm can lead to 5% errors in prescribed dose. In comparison, when MLCs or backup diaphragms alone was perturbed, the system was more robust and modulator errors of at least sigma = 1.5 mm were required to cause dose discrepancies greater than 5%. For systematic perturbation, even errors in the order of +/- 0.5 mm were shown to result in significant dosimetric deviations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".