MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2071897955 · doi:10.1118/1.2030985

Po‐Poster ‐ 06: Beam spot motion of medical linear accelerators

2005· article· en· W2071897955 on OpenAlexaff
Collins Yeboah, J Challacombe, Geordi Pang, P. O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomBeam (structure)PhysicsOpticsLinear particle acceleratorLaser beam qualityCalibrationNuclear medicineMedical imagingCone beam computed tomographyDosimetryMedicineComputed tomographyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Megavoltage cone‐beam computed tomography (MV‐CBCT) is a volumetric imaging method that can improve patient setup verification techniques. MV‐CBCT utilizes the treatment beam to obtain projections at every 1–2° around the patient. For this to be clinically acceptable, total dose received by the patient from all imaging sessions must be kept to a minimum and typically should be ⩽5% of the prescribed dose. This necessitates the use of extremely low doses (<<1MU) in the acquisition of each projection. At such low dose levels beam spot instability is known to exist and can compromise image quality. The purpose of this work is to quantify the beam spot motion of Siemen's accelerator for a conventional 6 MV beam and 5.4 MV “imaging beam” generated with a beryllium target. This was accomplished by using an a‐Si flat panel detector to image a cone‐beam geometric calibration phantom and using a calibration algorithm to derive the spot motion in reference frames fixed in space and/or attached to the gantry. Motion of the beam spot was observed immediately after beam startup primarily in the gun‐target direction. The maximum fixed motion of the 6MV beam spot was 1.1±0.3 mm and is similar to that observed for the low Z beam (1.2±0.1 mm). However, the beam spot position of the latter stabilized at about 0.5 MU compared to 6 MU for the 6 MV beam and had much less fluctuations once stabilized. The beam spot position of the conventional beam was much less reproducible than the low Z beam.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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