Sci—Thur AM: YIS ‐ 06: An EPID‐based 3D patient dose verification method for SBRT‐VMAT delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) delivered via volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can strongly benefit from an in vivo patient dose verification due to the large doses per fraction. Electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) can be utilized as a patient dose dosimeter. In this work we present a physics‐based model which utilizes on‐treatment EPID images to reconstruct the dose delivered to an anthropomorphic phantom during SBRT‐VMAT delivery. Methods: An SBRT linac beam was modeled using Monte Carlo methods and verified with measured data. Our dose reconstruction model back‐projects EPID measured focal fluence upstream of the patient and adds a predicted extra‐focal fluence component. This fluence is forward projected onto the patient's density matrix and convolved with dose kernels to calculate dose. The model was validated for two prostate, three lung, and two spine SBRT‐VMAT treatments. Results were compared to the treatment planning system's calculation. Results: 2%/2 mm chi comparison calculations gave pass rates for the whole volume, infield, and high dose region respectively, and no lower than: 98%, 95%, 99% for the prostate plans, 99%, 92%, 85% for the lung plans, and 91%, 85%, 81% for the spine plans. A 3%/3mm calculation gave pass rates no lower than 99%, 94%, and 90% for all dose regions for the prostate, lung, and spine respectively. Conclusions: We have developed a physics‐based model which calculates delivered dose to phantom (or patient) for SBRT‐VMAT delivery using on treatment EPID images. The accuracy of the results has allowed us to test this model clinically.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.015 |
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".