Dosimetric inter-institutional comparison in European radiotherapy centres: Results of IAEA supported treatment planning system audit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: One of the newer audit modalities operated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) involves audits of treatment planning systems (TPS) in radiotherapy. The main focus of the audit is the dosimetry verification of the delivery of a radiation treatment plan for three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy using high energy photon beams. The audit has been carried out in eight European countries - Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia, Slovakia, Poland and Portugal. The corresponding results are presented. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The TPS audit reviews the dosimetry, treatment planning and radiotherapy delivery processes using the 'end-to-end' approach, i.e. following the pathway similar to that of the patient, through imaging, treatment planning and dose delivery. The audit is implemented at the national level with IAEA assistance. The national counterparts conduct the TPS audit at local radiotherapy centres through on-site visits. TPS calculated doses are compared with ion chamber measurements performed in an anthropomorphic phantom for eight test cases per algorithm/beam. A set of pre-defined agreement criteria is used to analyse the performance of TPSs. RESULTS: TPS audit was carried out in 60 radiotherapy centres. In total, 190 data sets (combination of algorithm and beam quality) have been collected and reviewed. Dosimetry problems requiring interventions were discovered in about 10% of datasets. In addition, suboptimal beam modelling in TPSs was discovered in a number of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The TPS audit project using the IAEA methodology has verified the treatment planning system calculations for 3D conformal radiotherapy in a group of radiotherapy centres in Europe. It contributed to achieving better understanding of the performance of TPSs and helped to resolve issues related to imaging, dosimetry and treatment planning.
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 | 0.030 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".