A method for online verification of adapted fields using an independent dose monitor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinical implementation of online adaptive radiotherapy requires generation of modified fields and a method of dosimetric verification in a short time. We present a method of treatment field modification to account for patient setup error, and an online method of verification using an independent monitoring system. METHODS: The fields are modified by translating each multileaf collimator (MLC) defined aperture in the direction of the patient setup error, and magnifying to account for distance variation to the marked isocentre. A modified version of a previously reported online beam monitoring system, the integral quality monitoring (IQM) system, was investigated for validation of adapted fields. The system consists of a large area ion-chamber with a spatial gradient in electrode separation to provide a spatially sensitive signal for each beam segment, mounted below the MLC, and a calculation algorithm to predict the signal. IMRT plans of ten prostate patients have been modified in response to six randomly chosen setup errors in three orthogonal directions. RESULTS: A total of approximately 49 beams for the modified fields were verified by the IQM system, of which 97% of measured IQM signal agree with the predicted value to within 2%. CONCLUSIONS: The modified IQM system was found to be suitable for online verification of adapted treatment fields.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".