Evaluation of two methods of predicting MLC leaf positions using EPID measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In intensity modulated radiation treatments (IMRT), the position of the field edges and the modulation within the beam are often achieved with a multileaf collimator (MLC). During the MLC calibration process, due to the finite accuracy of leaf position measurements, a systematic error may be introduced to leaf positions. Thereafter leaf positions of the MLC depend on the systematic error introduced on each leaf during MLC calibration and on the accuracy of the leaf position control system (random errors). This study presents and evaluates two methods to predict the systematic errors on the leaf positions introduced during the MLC calibration. The two presented methods are based on a series of electronic portal imaging device (EPID) measurements. A comparison with film measurements showed that the EPID could be used to measure leaf positions without introducing any bias. The first method, referred to as the "central leaf method," is based on the method currently used at this center for MLC leaf calibration. It mimics the manner in which leaf calibration parameters are specified in the MLC control system and consequently is also used by other centers. The second method, a new method proposed by the authors and referred to as the "individual leaf method," involves the measurement of two positions for each leaf (-5 and +15 cm) and the interpolation and extrapolation from these two points to any other given position. The central leaf method and the individual leaf method predicted leaf positions at prescribed positions of -11, 0, 5, and 10 cm within 2.3 and 1.0 mm, respectively, with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.3 and 0.2 mm, respectively. The individual leaf method provided a better prediction of the leaf positions than the central leaf method. Reproducibility tests for leaf positions of -5 and +15 cm were performed. The reproducibility was within 0.4 mm on the same day and 0.4 mm six weeks later (1 SD). Measurements at gantry angles of 0 degrees, 90 degrees, and 270 degrees for leaf positions of -5 and +15 cm showed no significant effect of gravity. The individual leaf method could be used in various applications to improve the accuracy of radiotherapy treatment from planning to delivery. Three cases are discussed: IMRT beam verification, MLC calibration and dose calculation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".