Consistency Check of Planned Adaptive® Option on Helical Tomotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate a new Planned Adaptive software (TomoTherapy Inc., Madison, WI) of the helical tomotherapy system by retrospective verification and adaptive re-planning of radiation treatment. Four patients with different disease sites (brain, nasal cavity, lungs, prostate) were planned in duplicate using the diagnostic planning kVCT data set and MVCT studies of the first treatment fraction with the same optimization parameters for both plan types. The dosimetric characteristics of minimum, maximum, and mean dose to the targets as well as to organs at risk were compared. Both sets of plans were used for calculation of dose distributions in a water-equivalent phantom. Corresponding measurements of these plans in phantom were carried out with the use of radiographic film and ion chamber. In the case of the lung and prostate cancer patients, changes in dosimetric parameters compared to data generated with the kVCT study alone were less than 2%. Certain changes for the nasal cavity and brain cancer patients were greater than 2%, but they were explained in part by anatomy changes that occurred during the time between kVCT and MVCT studies. The Planned Adaptive software allows for adaptive radiotherapy planning using the MVCT studies obtained by the helical tomotherapy imaging system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".