SU‐E‐T‐187: Clinical Use of the Software for the Automation of Treatment Field Parameters Verification Prior to Radiation Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Verification of treatment field parameters by therapists take place prior to every or first fraction. Such verification or field timeout should be completely independent from record-and-verify system. It is performed manually via reading treatment parameters from linac screen and comparing them to treatment plan. We evaluate clinical use of software allowing automation of field timeout. METHODS: The program for automated timeout performs three tasks.Plan information is extracted from PDF printouts generated by Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) treatment planning system. User selects patient, plan and field to be compared with the field moded-up at the linac. Information from the Varian (Varian Medical Systems) linac's screen is extracted using video signal splitter and VGA2USB converter (Epiphan Systems, Ottawa, CA). Image farther undergoes character recognition, which works reliably for 1X, Trilogy and 2100C linacs used in out tests.The plan and linac screen information are output to the computer screen and user is alerted if mismatch is observed. The software uses tolerances established in out clinic. The program also outputs auxiliary information, e.g. bolus, which is not well alerted by or can be omitted in the record and verify system. In the workflow tested, PDF printouts are uploaded for the software during second check and automatic timeout is performed for all treatments except v-sim and first fraction (of each treatment plan). RESULTS: The software has friendly user interface and is easily included in clinical work flow. With the error rate being extremely low, we don't have data yet to claim that automated timeout provides higher safety than manual; however, it definitely cuts timeout time to 2-3sec per fields versus 10sec, if done manually. CONCLUSIONS: Field timeout automation is practicable and fits well into clinical workflow. It improves patient throughput and is expected to improve patient safety. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: S. Kriminski and I. Lysiuk: provisional patent application is submitted to United States Patent and Trademark Office.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.006 |
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".