MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117923728 · doi:10.1120/jacmp.v8i3.2377

Effect of skull shape approximations in Gamma Knife dose calculations

2007· article· en· W2117923728 on OpenAlexaff
Anita Berndt, James F. Beck

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreWinnipeg Regional Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkullAttenuationHead (geology)Nuclear medicinePhysicsMathematicsOpticsMedicineGeologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doses in Leksell GammaPlan (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) are calculated for each shot by summing the contribution from the 201 radiation beams emitted by the Gamma Knife (Elekta), weighted for attenuation in the tissue traversed. The patient's head is modeled based on 24 skull measurements, from which the depth to the calculation point is determined for each beam. The limited number of measurement points associated with this approach can result in substantial discrepancies between the skull model used for dose calculations and the actual skull contour from computed tomography or magnetic resonance data. A review of 24 patients found that differences between the actual and approximated skull shape gave treatment time errors as large as 4.1%, although in most instances, the errors were less than 1%. The conclusion was that the Leksell GammaPlan head model provides a quick and convenient approach for specifying the shape of the patient's head in all but extreme cases, where discrepancies as large as approximately 5% can result.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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