MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178114788 · doi:10.1120/jacmp.v16i6.5481

Practical dose delivery verification of craniospinal IMRT

2015· article· en· W2178114788 on OpenAlexaff
Young Lee, Anthony T Kim, Peiying Zhao, Aliaksandr Karotki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical physicsNuclear medicineComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) using IMRT allows dose sparing to organs-at-risk (OAR) whilst conforming the dose to the target volume. Due to the complexity of treatment involving several isocenters, the dose distribution created by the inverse-planned segmented fields must be verified prior to treatment. We propose and test methods to verify dose delivery using commonly available dosimetry equipment for commissioning and routine patient-specific dose verification of craniospinal IMRT. Ten patients treated with conventional CSI were retrospectively planned with a 3-isocenter (cranial, upper spine, and lower spine) IMRT technique. The isocenters were placed 25-27 cm away from each other in the longitudinal direction but in the same lateral and anterioposterior positions. The planning target volume (PTV) was defined as the brain with a 0.5 cm margin and spinal canal with a 1.0 cm margin. The plans were prescribed to 36 Gy in 20 fractions to the PTV mean dose. Eleven beams (five cranial, three upper spine, and three lower spine) were optimized simultaneously. The dose delivered by the IMRT plans was then recalculated on several different phantoms and measured using the following methods: 1) ionization chamber inserted in a cylindrical phantom, positioned in the junction regions between cranial/upper-spine isocenters and upper-/lower-spine isocenters; 2) MapCHECK centered in the overlap regions; and 3) ArcCHECK measurement with beams from each isocenter. For 1) ± 3% dose difference and for 2) and 3) ≥ 95% of measured points with a γ-index < 1 for 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance-to-agreement were deemed clinically acceptable. The median (range) planned to measured dose differences for the ionization chamber is 0.4% (-1.5% to 3.0%) for the cranial/upper-spine field and 1.8% (-0.8% to 2.6%) for the upper-/lower-spine field overlap region. The median (range) percentage of MapCHECK diodes with a γ index < 1 for 3%/3 mm criterion is 98.0% (95.3% to 99.7%) for the cranial/upper-spine and 97.3% (95.0% to 99.6%) for the upper-/lower-spine field overlap regions. The median (range) percentage of ArcCHECK diodes with a γ index < 1 for 3%/3 mm criterion is 99.7% (97.1% to 100%). Three different methods of verifying craniospinal IMRT were compared and tested. All techniques offer different benefits and together can be used for 1) commissioning the treatment technique and, separately, for 2) patient-specific pretreatment verification measurements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207