Interfractional trend analysis of dose differences based on 2D transit portal dosimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dose delivery of a radiotherapy treatment can be influenced by a number of factors. It has been demonstrated that the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) is valuable for transit portal dosimetry verification. Patient related dose differences can emerge at any time during treatment and can be categorized in two types: (1) systematic-appearing repeatedly, (2) random-appearing sporadically during treatment. The aim of this study is to investigate how systematic and random information appears in 2D transit dose distributions measured in the EPID plane over the entire course of a treatment and how this information can be used to examine interfractional trends, building toward a methodology to support adaptive radiotherapy. To create a trend overview of the interfractional changes in transit dose, the predicted portal dose for the different beams is compared to a measured portal dose using a γ evaluation. For each beam of the delivered fraction, information is extracted from the γ images to differentiate systematic from random dose delivery errors. From the systematic differences of a fraction for a projected anatomical structures, several metrics are extracted like percentage pixels with |γ| > 1. We demonstrate for four example cases the trends and dose difference causes which can be detected with this method. Two sample prostate cases show the occurrence of a random and systematic difference and identify the organ that causes the difference. In a lung cancer case a trend is shown of a rapidly diminishing atelectasis (lung fluid) during the course of treatment, which was detected with this trend analysis method. The final example is a breast cancer case where we show the influence of set-up differences on the 2D transit dose. A method is presented based on 2D portal transit dosimetry to record dose changes throughout the course of treatment, and to allow trend analysis of dose discrepancies. We show in example cases that this method can identify the causes of dose delivery differences and that treatment adaptation can be triggered as a result. It provides an important element toward informed decision-making for adaptive radiotherapy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".