MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of<sup>P</sup>DRESS (Patient Specific Dose Real Evaluation Systems) using a TENOMAG Gel and Optical CT (VISTA<sup>TM</sup>) in Clinical IMRT Prostate Case

2010· article· en· W2055591692 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Suk Lee, Jang Bo Shim, Kyung Hwan Chang, Yuanjie Cao, Jaeyoun Yi, Sam Ju Cho, HyunDo Huh, Kwang Hwan Cho, Chul Kee Min, Dae Sik Yang, Young Je Park, Won Seob Yoon, Chul Yong Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimeterScannerNuclear medicineDICOMRadiation treatment planningDose profileDistribution (mathematics)DosimetryMaterials scienceRadiation therapyComputer sciencePhysicsMedicineOpticsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aims of this study, we present the preliminary results of 3 dimensional dose evaluation software ( P DRESS, patient specific dose real evaluation systems). In this work, we compared planned 3D dose distribution with measured 3D dose distribution using a novel normoxic polymer gel dosimeter (TENOMAG) and a commercial cone-beam optical CT scanner (VISTA TM , Modus Medical Devices, Inc., London, ON, Canada) to verify the 3D dose distribution in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) prostate case. And we developed P DRESS using the Xelis Flatform which is developed by INFINITT Corporation is used to display the 3D dose distribution by loading the DICOM RT Data which is exported from RTP and optical-CT reconstructed VFF file. Data analysis is achieved by comparing the RTP data with the VFF data using profile, gamma map, and DTA. The profiles showed good agreement between RTP data, gel dosimeter, and gamma distribution and the precision of the dose distribution is within ± 5%. The results from this study show that there are no significantly discrepancies between the calculated dose distribution from treatment plan and the measured dose distribution from a TENOMAG gel scanned with an optical CT scanner. The 3D dose evaluation software ( P DRESS) which is developed in this study evaluates the accuracy of the three dimensional dose distributions.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207