MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169005332 · doi:10.1259/bjr/60612178

Dose-guided radiation therapy with megavoltage cone-beam CT

2006· review· en· W2169005332 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J Chen, Olivier Morin, Michèle Aubin, M. Kara Bucci, Cynthia Chuang, Jean Pouliot

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Radiology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMedicineNuclear medicineCone beam computed tomographyMedical physicsRadiation therapyRadiation treatment planningCone beam ctImage-guided radiation therapyRadiologyComputed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in fractionated external beam radiation therapy have increased our ability to deliver radiation doses that conform more tightly to the tumour volume. The steeper dose gradients delivered in these treatments make it increasingly important to set precisely the positions of the patient and the internal organs. For this reason, considerable research now focuses on methods using three-dimensional images of the patient on the treatment table to adapt either the patient position or the treatment plan, to account for variable organ locations. In this article, we briefly review the different adaptive methods being explored and discuss a proposed dose-guided radiation therapy strategy that adapts the treatment for future fractions to compensate for dosimetric errors from past fractions. The main component of this strategy is a procedure to reconstruct the dose delivered to the patient based on treatment-time portal images and pre-treatment megavoltage cone-beam computed tomography (MV CBCT) images of the patient. We describe the work to date performed to develop our dose reconstruction procedure, including the implementation of a MV CBCT system for clinical use, experiments performed to calibrate MV CBCT for electron density and to use the calibrated MV CBCT for dose calculations, and the dosimetric calibration of the portal imager. We also present an example of a reconstructed patient dose using a preliminary reconstruction program and discuss the technical challenges that remain to full implementation of dose reconstruction and dose-guided therapy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations95
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of RadiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207