Quality Assurance Results for a Commercial Radiosurgery System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this communication is to inform the radiosurgery community of quality assurance (QA) results requiring attention in a commercial FDA-approved linac-based cone stereo-tactic radiosurgery (SRS) system. Standard published QA guidelines as per the American Association of Physics in Medicine (AAPM) were followed during the SRS system's commissioning process including end-to-end testing, cone concentricity testing, image transfer verification, and documentation. Several software and hardware deficiencies that were deemed risky were uncovered during the process and QA processes were put in place to mitigate these risks during clinical practice. In particular, the present work focuses on daily cone concentricity testing and commissioning-related findings associated with the software. Cone concentricity/alignment is measured daily using both optical light field inspection, as well as quantitative radiation field tests with the electronic portal imager. In 10 out of 36 clini-cal treatments, adjustments to the cone position had to be made to align the cone with the collimator axis to less than 0.5 mm and on two occasions the pre-adjustment measured offset was 1.0 mm. Software-related errors discovered during commissioning included incorrect transfer of the isocentre in DICOM coordinates, improper handling of non-axial image sets, and complex handling of beam data, especially for multi-target treatments. QA processes were established to mitigate the occurrence of the software errors. With proper QA processes, the reported SRS system complies with tolerances set out in established guidelines. Discussions with the vendor are ongoing to address some of the hardware issues related to cone alignment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".