Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose an approach to determining optimal beam weights in breast/chest wall IMRT treatment plans. The goal is to decrease breathing effect and to maximize skin dose if the skin is included in the target or, otherwise, to minimize the skin dose. Two points in the target are utilized to calculate the optimal weights. The optimal plan (i.e., the plan with optimal beam weights) consists of high energy unblocked beams, low energy unblocked beams, and IMRT beams. Six breast and five chest wall cases were retrospectively planned with this scheme in Eclipse, including one breast case where CTV was contoured by the physician. Compared with 3D CRT plans composed of unblocked and field-in-field beams, the optimal plans demonstrated comparable or better dose uniformity, homogeneity, and conformity to the target, especially at beam junction when supraclavicular nodes are involved. Compared with nonoptimal plans (i.e., plans with nonoptimized weights), the optimal plans had better dose distributions at shallow depths close to the skin, especially in cases where breathing effect was taken into account. This was verified with experiments using a MapCHECK device attached to a motion simulation table (to mimic motion caused by breathing).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".