Dosimetric modelling of a scanned pencil beam apparatus for evaluation of cobalt-60 tomotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tomotherapy is a special application of intensity modulated radiation therapy based on a geometry similar to computed tomography (CT) imaging. Recently, the viability of using cobalt-60 as the radiation source for tomotherapy has been demonstrated. To further investigate this application an experimental system consisting of a computer controlled first generation translate/rotate CT jig has been constructed. The intensity is modulated by control of the velocity of motion of the phantom through a narrow (1/spl times/1 cm/sup 2/) beam. By comparison, a commercial system developed for linac tomotherapy utilizes the Mimic, a 2D multileaf collimator. The goal of this work is to assess the agreement between an intensity modulated beam generated by these two methods. Beam profiles for a single beam portal are modelled using a pencil-beam based treatment planning system. Beam profiles from a simple wedged beam to more complex profiles are calculated for the multileaf collimator and then an optimal match generated for the scanning pencil beam. Agreement between the profiles is better than 3% in the high dose region. Therefore, beam delivery assessment with our experimental system will be relevant for the investigation of a potential clinical device.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".