MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097355311 · doi:10.1120/jacmp.v16i4.5350

Amplitude gating for a coached breathing approach in respiratory gated 10 MV flattening filter‐free VMAT delivery

2015· article· en· W2097355311 on OpenAlexafffund
Francis Viel, Richard Lee, Ermias Gete, Cheryl Duzenli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
FundersBC Cancer Agency
KeywordsTruebeamImaging phantomBreathingLinear particle acceleratorNuclear medicineSABR volatility modelPhysicsIonization chamberGatingMedicineBiomedical engineeringBeam (structure)OpticsMathematicsAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to investigate amplitude gating combined with a coached breathing strategy for 10 MV flattening filter-free (FFF) volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) on the Varian TrueBeam linac. Ten patient plans for VMAT SABR liver were created using the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). The verification plans were then transferred to a CT-scanned Quasar phantom and delivered on a TrueBeam linac using a 10 MV FFF beam and Varian's real-time position management (RPM) system for respiratory gating based on breathing amplitude. Breathing traces were acquired from ten patients using two kinds of breathing patterns: free breathing and an interrupted (~ 5 s pause) end of exhale coached breathing pattern. Ion chamber and Gafchromic film measurements were acquired for a gated delivery while the phantom moved under the described breathing patterns, as well as for a nongated stationary phantom delivery. The gate window was set to obtain a range of residual target motion from 2-5 mm. All gated deliveries on a moving phantom have been shown to be dosimetrically equivalent to the nongated deliveries on a static phantom, with differences in point dose measurements under 1% and average gamma 2%/2 mm agreement above 98.7%. Comparison with the treatment planning system also resulted in good agreement, with differences in point-dose measurements under 2.5% and average gamma 3%/3 mm agreement of 97%. The use of a coached breathing pattern significantly increases the duty cycle, compared with free breathing, and allows for shorter treatment times. Patients' free-breathing patterns contain considerable variability and, although dosimetric results for gated delivery may be acceptable, it is difficult to achieve efficient treatment delivery. A coached breathing pattern combined with a 5 mm amplitude gate, resulted in both high-quality dose distributions and overall shortest gated beam delivery times.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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