Comprehensive quality assurance for stereotactic radiosurgery treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have used a commercially available high precision Lucy phantom to perform comprehensive quality assurance for stereotactic radiosurgery treatments. The quantitative evaluation of system uncertainties included imaging, planning and treatment delivery systems. The quality assurance tests showed that the well-defined targets were identified to within +/-1 mm in all the imaging modalities. The pre-known target volumes were reproduced within 2 cm3 in both MR and CT. The planned target was delivered within 2% of the prescribed dose and to within 2 mm accuracy. The inaccuracy in the isocentre position at the Linac was less than 1.2 mm. The maximum error observed in the depth helmet was 0.5 mm and the overall uncertainty was within 0.23 mm. We have also established a quality assurance program based on the study and proposed the tolerance and the frequency of the tests required to be carried out. The tests were carried out using a Radionics planning system and delivered on a Varian Clinac 2100 linear accelerator machine. These tests also established a base line for future comparisons.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".