Impact of multileaf collimator leaf positioning accuracy on intensity modulation radiation therapy quality assurance ion chamber measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality assurance (QA) procedures for intensity modulation radiation therapy (IMRT) usually involve an ion chamber measurement in a phantom using the beam configuration of the actual treatment plan. In our QA procedures it was observed that the degree of agreement between the measurement and the calculation could vary from plan to plan, from linac to linac, as well as over time, with a discrepancy up to 8%. In this paper we examine one aspect of the process which can contribute to such poor reproducibility, namely, the leaf end position accuracy. A series of measurements was designed to irradiate an ion chamber using small beam segments where one multileaf collimator (MLC) edge covers half of the chamber. It was shown that the reproducibility varied up to 13%, which provides a possible explanation for the observed discrepancies above. A useful tool was also developed to measure ionization signals from individual segments of an IMRT sequence. In addition, an understanding of the leaf end position variations offers some insight into the overall quality of an IMRT dose distribution.
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 | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".