MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084010097 · doi:10.1120/jacmp.v8i1.2380

Development of quality control standards for radiation therapy equipment in Canada

2007· article· en· W2084010097 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter Dunscombe, Harry Johnson, Clément Arsenault, George Mawko, Jean‐Pierre Bissonnette, Jan Seuntjens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreDr. Georges-L.-Dumont University Hospital CentreQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreCancerCare ManitobaMcGill University Health CentreAlberta Cancer FoundationUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality assuranceQuality (philosophy)Quality controlControl (management)SuiteComputer scienceEngineering managementMedical physicsWork (physics)Risk analysis (engineering)Operations managementMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the essential components of a comprehensive quality assurance program in radiotherapy are the quality control protocols to be used on the equipment and, in particular, the performance objectives and criteria. In the present work, we describe the development of a suite of quality control documents for use across Canada. Following a generic format, we are generating concise, clear standards for the most commonly used equipment in radiotherapy, with the emphasis on performance measures. The final standards of performance are confirmed following cross-country consultation facilitated by the availability of draft documents on the Canadian Medical Physics web site.

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)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207