MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2070531568 · doi:10.1118/1.2965937

Poster - Thurs Eve-18: Performance evaluation of MV CT imaging on the HI ART II tomotherapy unit

2008· article· en· W2070531568 on OpenAlexaff
Brandon Disher, Stewart Gaede, J Battista

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTomotherapyMedical imagingMedical physicsNuclear medicineMedicineRadiologyRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The HI-ART II unit (TomoTherapy Inc., Madison WI) is a modality used by the London Regional Cancer Program (LRCP) for radiation therapy. This machine uses the same source of Megavoltage energy radiation to image (3.5 MV) and to treat (6MV) patients, combining the functionality of a traditional linear accelerator and CT simulator into one unit. Thus, it is possible to assess patient positioning and adjust for anatomy changes just prior to radiation therapy. Unfortunately, at MV energy levels, the physics of radiation interaction limits image quality, and gives rise to an inherent dose limitation concern that enhances noise levels. Therefore, we propose to quantify the image quality produced by the HI-ART II unit using techniques established for kVCT scanner technology. Our study involved the use of three standard phantoms to test image resolution, noise, uniformity, and linearity for a 512 × 512 reconstruction matrix and three scan pitch settings (0.8, 1.6, and 2.4). Results follow: linearity between MV CT number versus relative electron density was observed, noise calculations ranged from 2.15-2.51%, and a distinct central artifact was revealed during uniformity testing. The linearity between MV CT number versus relative electron density implies that MV CT images are highly suitable for dose calculations. MV CT image quality of uniform phantoms were acceptable and demonstrated noise levels higher than those produced by kVCT simulators. Further study is necessary to correct for the central artifact in MV CT images.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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