MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2055798860 · doi:10.1118/1.4815644

WE‐G‐WAB‐02: BEST IN PHYSICS (JOINT IMAGING‐THERAPY)‐MR and Linac Magnetic Field Mutual Decoupling for An MRI‐Guided Radiation Therapy System

2013· article· en· W2055798860 on OpenAlexaffabout
T Stanescu, Tony Tadic, Jan van Marle, Jeff D. Winter, Labros Petropoulos, M. Sweitzer, David A. Jaffray

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsIMRIS (Canada)Princess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear particle acceleratorTruebeamPhysicsMagnetic fieldImaging phantomShim (computing)Nuclear medicineOpticsNuclear magnetic resonanceBeam (structure)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: An MR‐guided RT system, including a 6X TrueBeam Varian linac and a 1.5T IMRIS MRI scanner‐on‐rails, is under installation at our institution. Numerical simulations and experiments were performed to quantify and test the magnetic field mutual decoupling between the MR and linac/couch ensemble. Methods: Linear programming and finite element methods were used to perform numerical simulations for the MR‐linac/couch system. First, the 1.5 T MR field was reconstructed and matched to data from manufacturer. The next step was to perform magnetic force simulations and measurements for a simplified assembly, replicating all key ferromagnetic sub‐structures of the couch (wrists, breaks, etc.). To guide the experiment, CAD data of the couch/linac (Varian) was used for various simulation scenarios, i.e. MR distance‐to‐couch/linac and gantry rotation. Measurements were performed for a) magnetic forces acting on various couch components, b)magnetic fringe field mapping (gauss probe) in the vicinity of linac and couch (e.g. wrists, breaks), c)MR imaging field homogeneity. The final set of simulations was for the entire MR‐linac vault, including ferromagnetic structural components obtained from architectural drawings of the facility (e.g. doors, beams, r‐bar). Results: The simulated MR fringe field was in good agreement with the measurements (within 1 gauss). The magnetic pull forces on the couch components were computed for arbitrary directions to match the experimental setups. For all scenarios the simulated and measured data was in good agreement. The couch operated optimally in the MR field. The fringe field at the linac head was less than 20 gauss. For all intended imaging locations, the MR full shimming was achieved, compensating for the presence of the linac/couch. Conclusion: The MR, linac, and couch ensemble was modeled via numerical simulations. The independent and optimal operation of all components was experimentally validated. The MR‐linac system can be integrated and operate with no special modifications. J. Winter and L. Petropoulos are employees of IMRIS. J. Marle and M. Sweitzer are employees of Varian Medical Systems. IMRIS and Varian are companies co‐developing the MRgRT system. Funding for the MRgRT project at Princess Margaret Hospital was provided by the Canadian Foundation for Innovation.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.012

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→