Time delays and margins in gated radiotherapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In gated radiotherapy, the accuracy of treatment delivery is determined by the accuracy with which both the imaging and treatment beams are gated. If the time delays (the time between the target entering/leaving the gated region and the first/last image acquired or treatment beam on/off) for the imaging and treatment systems are in the opposite directions, they may increase the required internal target volume (ITV) margin, above that indicated by the tolerance for either system measured individually. We measured a gating system's time delay on 3 fluoroscopy systems, and 3 linear accelerator treatment beams, using a motion phantom of known geometry, varying gating type (amplitude vs. phase), beam energy, dose rate, and period. The average beam on imaging time delays were -0.04 +/- 0.05 s (amplitude, 1 SD), -0.11 +/- 0.04 s (phase); while the average beam off imaging time delays were -0.18 +/- 0.08 s (amplitude) and -0.15 +/- 0.04 s (phase). The average beam on treatment time delays were 0.09 +/- 0.02 s (amplitude, 1 SD), 0.10 +/- 0.03 s (phase); while the average beam off time delays for treatment beams were 0.08 +/- 0.02 s (amplitude) and 0.07 +/- 0.02 s (phase). The negative value indicates the images were acquired early, and the positive values show the treatment beam was triggered late. We present a technique for calculating the margin necessary to account for time delays and found that the difference between the imaging and treatment time delays required a significant increase in the ITV margin in the direction of tumor motion at the gated level.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it