MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042881651 · doi:10.1118/1.4814076

SU-E-P-02: Canadian Technical Quality Control Guidelines - National Document Review

2013· article· en· W2042881651 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michelle Nielsen, Jean‐Pierre Bissonnette, Michael Milosevic

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreCredit Valley HospitalTrillium Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineMandateQuality (philosophy)Process (computing)Subject-matter expertQuality assuranceControl (management)Computer scienceProcess managementEngineering managementMedical physicsMedicineBusinessEngineeringOperations managementExpert systemPolitical scienceExternal quality assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (CPQR) is an alliance among the national professional organizations involved in the delivery of radiation treatment in Canada. The mandate of the CPQR is to support the universal availability of high quality and safe radiotherapy for all Canadians through system performance improvement and the development of consensus-based guidelines and indicators to aid in radiation treatment program development and evaluation. One of the projects includes a comprehensive review and update of National Technical Quality Control Guidelines (formally known as the CAPCA Quality Control Standards). Methods: The guidelines follow a generic format; concise QC guidelines can be generated for the most commonly used equipment in radiotherapy, with the emphasis on performance measures. Each subject matter is analyzed by an expert reviewer in the field and each guideline is reviewed, it is then revised after public consultation and external validation through field testing. Each guidance document is to be reviewed every two years to keep the documents current and continuously refreshed, inputting new expert findings, risk assessments, and user feedback into continually refined versions of the documents. Results: There are currently 13 documents that are presently in the review process. This includes revamped old and new guideline documents deemed necessary by the physics community. 7 documents are posted and available for public use. 5 of these documents are still being externally validated and could be modified in the next few months. 6 documents are currently being reviewed by experts. Conclusion: This national process provides rapid and relevant guidance for quality control of radiotherapy equipment and processes. By retaining ownership of these living documents COMP and CPQR can rapidly address issues raised by regulators. This research was financially supported by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer.

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)0.165
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.300
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1650.300
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0310.025
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0170.005
Open science0.0170.007
Research integrity0.0120.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.017

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.419 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyFrench-language works237,207