MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054768877 · doi:10.1118/1.4889433

WE‐E‐BRE‐04: Dual Focal Spot Dose Painting for Precision Preclinical Radiobiological Investigations

2014· article· en· W2054768877 on OpenAlexaffabout
James Stewart, Patricia Lindsay, David A. Jaffray

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollimated lightCollimatorImaging phantomDosimetryCold spotHot spot (computer programming)OpticsFocal lengthDose profileFocal pointMaterials scienceNuclear medicineCardinal pointPhysicsComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Recent progress in small animal radiotherapy systems has provided the foundation for delivering the heterogeneous, millimeter scale dose distributions demanded by preclinical radiobiology investigations. Despite advances in preclinical dose planning, delivery of highly heterogeneous dose distributions is constrained by the fixed collimation systems and large x‐ray focal spot common in small animal radiotherapy systems. This work proposes a dual focal spot dose optimization and delivery method with a large x‐ray focal spot used to deliver homogeneous dose regions and a small focal spot to paint spatially heterogeneous dose regions. Methods: Two‐dimensional dose kernels were measured for a 1 mm circular collimator with radiochromic film at 10 mm depth in a solid water phantom for the small and large x‐ray focal spots on a recently developed small animal microirradiator. These kernels were used in an optimization framework which segmented a desired dose distribution into low‐ and high‐spatial frequency regions for delivery by the large and small focal spot, respectively. For each region, the method determined an optimal set of stage positions and beam‐on times. The method was demonstrated by optimizing a bullseye pattern consisting of 0.75 mm radius circular target and 0.5 and 1.0 mm wide rings alternating between 0 and 2 Gy. Results: Compared to a large focal spot technique, the dual focal spot technique improved the optimized dose distribution: 69.2% of the optimized dose was within 0.5 Gy of the intended dose for the large focal spot, compared to 80.6% for the dual focal spot method. The dual focal spot design required 14.0 minutes of optimization, and will require 178.3 minutes for automated delivery. Conclusion: The dual focal spot optimization and delivery framework is a novel option for delivering conformal and heterogeneous dose distributions at the preclinical level and provides a new experimental option for unique radiobiological investigations. Funding Support: this work is supported by funding the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and a Mitacs‐accelerate fellowship. Conflict of Interest: Dr. Lindsay and Dr. Jaffray are listed as inventors of the small animal microirradiator described herein. This system has been licensed for commercial development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207