MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045630447 · doi:10.1118/1.2761603

WE‐E‐BRA‐05: Reducing the Frequency of Linac Output Check: A Statistical Model of Linac Output Fluctuation Based On a 3 Year History to Evaluate New Tolerances as a Function of Test Frequency for 12 Linear Accelerators

2007· article· en· W2045630447 on OpenAlexaff
Hugo Bouchard, Jean‐François Carrier

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear particle acceleratorStatisticsGaussianMathematicsPhotonFormalism (music)Confidence intervalNuclear medicinePhysicsOpticsMedicineBeam (structure)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The study is based on a formalism to model the fluctuation of 12 linac outputs during a 3 year period. From a semi‐empirical statistical model and TG‐40 recommendations, a QA program is built from calculated action levels as a function of test frequency and time‐dependant probability distributions. Method and Materials: The linac output data is analyzed to fit a statistical model taking into account a systematic and a random component in the daily fluctuation. A 3 year history of daily output measurements totalizing 71 independent energies of photons and electrons is used to evaluate the parameters in each model. Action levels are calculated as a function of test frequency from obtained models based on tolerances defined in TG‐40. A confidence level of 95% is used to define the QA program such that machine output is kept within given limits, the latter being obtained by fitting tolerance functions with TG‐40 action levels. Measurement uncertainties are taken into account in the model and Gaussian statistics are used in the formalism. Results: Comparison between models and data history are in agreement with Gaussian statistics. For each linac and energy, tolerance functions are obtained from data history and new action levels are used with reduced test frequency. The tolerance of 2% recommended by TG‐40 for monthly output constancy check is reduced to values ranging from 1.2% to 1.8% for a test frequency of two months. Linac calibration frequency is reassessed to values ranging from 4 to 12 months. Conclusion: While daily check should be kept constant to prevent unpredictable variations, the frequency of output check can be reduced using new action levels based on a program‐defined limit and confidence level. Probability distributions can be used to evaluate linac calibration frequency based on machine stability. The model can be extended to other linac parameters.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207