Optimal margin and edge-enhanced intensity maps in the presence of motion and uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In radiation therapy, intensity maps involving margins have long been used to counteract the effects of dose blurring arising from motion. More recently, intensity maps with increased intensity near the edge of the tumour (edge enhancements) have been studied to evaluate their ability to offset similar effects that affect tumour coverage. In this paper, we present a mathematical methodology to derive margin and edge-enhanced intensity maps that aim to provide tumour coverage while delivering minimum total dose. We show that if the tumour is at most about twice as large as the standard deviation of the blurring distribution, the optimal intensity map is a pure scaling increase of the static intensity map without any margins or edge enhancements. Otherwise, if the tumour size is roughly twice (or more) the standard deviation of motion, then margins and edge enhancements are preferred, and we present formulae to calculate the exact dimensions of these intensity maps. Furthermore, we extend our analysis to include scenarios where the parameters of the motion distribution are not known with certainty, but rather can take any value in some range. In these cases, we derive a similar threshold to determine the structure of an optimal margin intensity map.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".