MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089817484 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/59/16/4749

Time dependent pre-treatment EPID dosimetry for standard and FFF VMAT

2014· article· en· W2089817484 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Podesta, S. Nijsten, L. Persoon, Stefan Scheib, Christof Baltes, Frank Verhaegen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Physical Laboratory
KeywordsTruebeamCalibrationNuclear medicineDosimetryImage-guided radiation therapyImaging phantomLinear particle acceleratorQuality assuranceRadiation therapyMedicineOpticsPhysicsBeam (structure)Radiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methods to calibrate Megavoltage electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) for dosimetry have been previously documented for dynamic treatments such as intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using flattened beams and typically using integrated fields. While these methods verify the accumulated field shape and dose, the dose rate and differential fields remain unverified. The aim of this work is to provide an accurate calibration model for time dependent pre-treatment dose verification using amorphous silicon (a-Si) EPIDs in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for both flattened and flattening filter free (FFF) beams. A general calibration model was created using a Varian TrueBeam accelerator, equipped with an aS1000 EPID, for each photon spectrum 6 MV, 10 MV, 6 MV-FFF, 10 MV-FFF. As planned VMAT treatments use control points (CPs) for optimization, measured images are separated into corresponding time intervals for direct comparison with predictions. The accuracy of the calibration model was determined for a range of treatment conditions. Measured and predicted CP dose images were compared using a time dependent gamma evaluation using criteria (3%, 3 mm, 0.5 sec). Time dependent pre-treatment dose verification is possible without an additional measurement device or phantom, using the on-board EPID. Sufficient data is present in trajectory log files and EPID frame headers to reliably synchronize and resample portal images. For the VMAT plans tested, significantly more deviation is observed when analysed in a time dependent manner for FFF and non-FFF plans than when analysed using only the integrated field. We show EPID-based pre-treatment dose verification can be performed on a CP basis for VMAT plans. This model can measure pre-treatment doses for both flattened and unflattened beams in a time dependent manner which highlights deviations that are missed in integrated field verifications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations53
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207