Sci—Thur PM: Planning & Delivery — 03: Automated delivery and quality assurance of a modulated electron radiation therapy plan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modulated electron radiation therapy (MERT) offers the potential to improve healthy tissue sparing through increased dose conformity. Challenges remain, however, in accurate beamlet dose calculation, plan optimization, collimation method and delivery accuracy. In this work, we investigate the accuracy and efficiency of an end‐to‐end MERT plan and automated‐delivery workflow for the electron boost portion of a previously treated whole breast irradiation case. Dose calculations were performed using Monte Carlo methods and beam weights were determined using a research‐based treatment planning system capable of inverse optimization. The plan was delivered to radiochromic film placed in a water equivalent phantom for verification, using an automated motorized tertiary collimator. The automated delivery, which covered 4 electron energies, 196 subfields and 6183 total MU was completed in 25.8 minutes, including 6.2 minutes of beam‐on time with the remainder of the delivery time spent on collimator leaf motion and the automated interfacing with the accelerator in service mode. The delivery time could be reduced by 5.3 minutes with minor electron collimator modifications and the beam‐on time could be reduced by and estimated factor of 2–3 through redesign of the scattering foils. Comparison of the planned and delivered film dose gave 3%/3 mm gamma pass rates of 62.1, 99.8, 97.8, 98.3, and 98.7 percent for the 9, 12, 16, 20 MeV, and combined energy deliveries respectively. Good results were also seen in the delivery verification performed with a MapCHECK 2 device. The results showed that accurate and efficient MERT delivery is possible with current technologies.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.054 |
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".