A comparative evaluation of two head and neck immobilization devices using electronic portal imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was performed to compare the positioning reproducibility and the cost efficiency for two head and neck immobilization devices: the Uvex (Uvex Safety, Smithfield, USA) plastic mask system and the Finesse Frame with Ultraplast System (PLANET Medical, Svendborg, Denmark). 20 patients treated with 3D conformal radiation therapy for head and neck cancers were randomly selected (10 for each of the two different immobilization systems) and electronic portal images acquired during their course of treatment were saved and used in this study. The anatomical landmark coordinates and their shifts in the anteroposterior (AP) and craniocaudal (CC) directions with respect to the digitized simulator films for lateral fields were analysed using an in-house developed portal image registration system. Statistically, no evidence was found to indicate that the systematic components of the displacement for the Uvex system and the Finesse Frame with Ultraplast System were different from each other or from zero. The random component of displacement was slightly smaller in the AP direction for the Uvex than the Ultraplast system (sigma = 1.9 mm and 2.9 mm, respectively, p = 0.007), but larger in the CC direction (sigma = 3.8 mm and 2.2 mm, respectively, p<10(-9)). Production time and required materials for a radiation therapy department were also quantified to assess costs for each system. The overall costs per patient were estimated at 141.50 dollars (CAD) and 82.10 dollars for the Uvex and Ultraplast systems, respectively. The Finesse Frame with Ultraplast System of immobilization for head and neck cancer treatment provides a field placement reproducibility that is equal to, or greater than, that of the Uvex plastic mask immobilization system and, while it requires more expensive materials, the workload and consequently overall cost is greatly reduced.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".