MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2060494356 · doi:10.1118/1.4740112

Poster - Thur Eve - 05: Safety systems and failure modes and effects analysis for a magnetic resonance image guided radiation therapy system

2012· article· en· W2060494356 on OpenAlexaff
M Lamey, Marco Carlone, Hamideh Alasti, J.P. Bissonnette, Jette Borg, Stephen Breen, Catherine Coolens, Russell Heaton, Md Shafiqul Islam, M van Proojen, M Sharpe, T Stanescu, David A. Jaffray

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreCredit Valley Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingMedical imagingResonance (particle physics)Medical physicsNuclear medicineImage-guided radiation therapyRadiation therapyMedicineNuclear magnetic resonancePhysicsRadiologyAtomic physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: An online Magnetic Resonance guided Radiation Therapy (MRgRT) system is under development. The system is comprised of an MRI with the capability of travel between and into HDR brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy vaults. The system will provide on-line MR images immediately prior to radiation therapy. The MR images will be registered to a planning image and used for image guidance. With the intention of system safety we have performed a failure modes and effects analysis. METHODS: A process tree of the facility function was developed. Using the process tree as well as an initial design of the facility as guidelines possible failure modes were identified, for each of these failure modes root causes were identified. For each possible failure the assignment of severity, detectability and occurrence scores was performed. Finally suggestions were developed to reduce the possibility of an event. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: The process tree consists of nine main inputs and each of these main inputs consisted of 5 - 10 sub inputs and tertiary inputs were also defined. The process tree ensures that the overall safety of the system has been considered. Several possible failure modes were identified and were relevant to the design, construction, commissioning and operating phases of the facility. The utility of the analysis can be seen in that it has spawned projects prior to installation and has lead to suggestions in the design of the facility.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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