Poster — Thur Eve — 15: Improvements in the stability of the tomotherapy imaging beam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Use of helical TomoTherapy based MVCT imaging for adaptive planning requires the image values (HU) to remain stable over the course of treatment. In the past, the image value stability was suboptimal, which required frequent change to the image value to density calibration curve to avoid dose errors on the order of 2–4%. The stability of the image values at our center was recently improved by stabilizing the dose rate of the machine (dose control servo) and performing daily MVCT calibration corrections. In this work, we quantify the stability of the image values over treatment time by comparing patient treatment image density derived using MVCT and KVCT. The analysis includes 1) MVCT ‐ KVCT density difference histogram, 2) MVCT vs KVCT density spectrum, 3) multiple average profile density comparison and 4) density difference in homogeneous locations. Over two months, the imaging beam stability was compromised several times due to a combination of target wobbling, spectral calibration, target change and magnetron issues. The stability of the image values were analyzed over the same period. Results show that the impact on the patient dose calculation is 0.7% +− 0.6%.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".