MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135324387 · doi:10.1120/jacmp.v7i3.2247

Investigating treatment dose error due to beam attenuation by a carbon fiber tabletop

2006· article· en· W2135324387 on OpenAlexaff
W. Kenji Myint, M Niedbala, David E. Wilkins, L Gerig

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsOttawa Regional Cancer FoundationOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttenuationBeam (structure)OpticsMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon fiber is commonly used in radiation therapy for treatment tabletops and various immobilization and support devices, partially because it is generally perceived to be almost radiotransparent to high-energy photons. To avoid exposure to normal tissue during modern radiation therapy, one must deliver the radiation from all gantry angles; hence, beams often transit the couch proximal to the patient. The effects of the beam attenuation by the support structure of the couch are often neglected in the planning process. In this study, we investigate the attenuation of 6-MV and 18-MV photon beams by a Medtec (Orange City, IA) carbon fiber couch. We have determined that neglecting the attenuation of oblique treatment fields by the carbon fiber couch can result in localized dose reduction from 4% to 16%, depending on energy, field size, and geometry. Further, we investigate the ability of a commercial treatment-planning system (Theraplan Plus v3.8) to account for the attenuation by the treatment couch. Results show that incorporating the carbon fiber couch in the patient model reduces the dose error to less than 2%. The variation in dose reduction as a function of longitudinal couch position was also measured. In the triangular strut region of the couch, the attenuation varied +/- 0.5% following the periodic nature of the support structure. Based on these findings, we propose the routine incorporation of the treatment tabletop into patient treatment planning dose calculations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations55
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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