MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346716612 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/61/10/3969

Time-resolved versus time-integrated portal dosimetry: the role of an object’s position with respect to the isocenter in volumetric modulated arc therapy

2016· article· en· W2346716612 on OpenAlexaff
Lotte E J R Schyns, L. Persoon, Mark Podesta, Wouter J. C. van Elmpt, Frank Verhaegen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsocenterPosition (finance)DosimetryArc (geometry)Object (grammar)Computer visionNuclear medicineComputer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligenceOpticsMedicineMathematicsGeometryImaging phantom

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this work is to compare time-resolved (TR) and time-integrated (TI) portal dosimetry, focussing on the role of an object's position with respect to the isocenter in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Portal dose images (PDIs) are simulated and measured for different cases: a sphere (1), a bovine bone (2) and a patient geometry (3). For the simulated case (1) and the experimental case (2), several transformations are applied at different off-axis positions. In the patient case (3), three simple plans with different isocenters are created and pleural effusion is simulated in the patient. The PDIs before and after the sphere transformations, as well as the PDIs with and without simulated pleural effusion, are compared using a TI and TR gamma analysis. In addition, the performance of the TI and TR gamma analyses for the detection of real geometric changes in patients treated with clinical plans is investigated and a correlation analysis is performed between gamma fail rates and differences in dose volume histogram (DVH) metrics. The TI gamma analysis can show large differences in gamma fail rates for the same transformation at different off-axis positions (or for different plan isocenters). The TR gamma analysis, however, shows consistent gamma fail rates. For the detection of real geometric changes in patients treated with clinical plans, the TR gamma analysis has a higher sensitivity than the TI gamma analysis. However, the specificity for the TR gamma analysis is lower than for the TI gamma analysis. Both the TI and TR gamma fail rates show no correlation with changes in DVH metrics. This work shows that TR portal dosimetry is fundamentally superior to TI portal dosimetry, because it removes the strong dependence of the gamma fail rate on the off-axis position/plan isocenter. However, for 2D TR portal dosimetry, it is still difficult to interpret gamma fail rates in terms of changes in DVH metrics for patients treated with VMAT.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207