MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Real-world examples of sensitivity failures of the 3%/3mm pass rate metric and published action levels when used in IMRT/VMAT system commissioning

2013· article· en· W2107431082 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin E. Nelms, G Jarry, Maria F. Chan, C.J. Hampton, Yoichi Watanabe, Vladimir Feygelman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetric (unit)Project commissioningComputer sciencePoint (geometry)Sensitivity (control systems)Medical physicsQuality (philosophy)Reliability engineeringMedicineMathematicsPublishingOperations managementEngineeringPhysicsElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In IMRT/VMAT system commissioning (as with any system), quality is improved by striving for tight tolerances of stringent metrics of accuracy. For 5 cases, passing rates for 3%/3mm gamma analysis were generated following the TG119 instructions. Subsequently, more stringent/sensitive criteria combined with advanced volumetric dose analysis were applied, and in each case significant systematic errors were clearly identified despite the high 3%/3mm passing rates. In 4 of 5 cases, the error was easily remedied. These real-world examples of observed "false negatives" (insensitivities) point towards the inappropriateness of the 3%/3mm gamma passing rate metric as the basis for acceptance testing/commissioning of the IMRT/VMAT delivery chain.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207