MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404293284 · doi:10.1118/1.4950712

Source strength verification and quality assurance of preloaded brachytherapy needles using a CMOS flat panel detector

2016· article· en· W2404293284 on OpenAlexafffund
Maryam Golshan, Ingrid Spadinger, Nick Chng

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBC Cancer AgencyProstate Cancer Foundation
KeywordsDetectorBrachytherapyCalibrationQuality assuranceImage qualityCollimated lightFlat panel detectorReproducibilityIonization chamberMaterials scienceOpticsComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringMathematicsImage (mathematics)PhysicsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringStatisticsMedicineSurgeryRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Current methods of low dose rate brachytherapy source strength verification for sources preloaded into needles consist of either assaying a small number of seeds from a separate sample belonging to the same lot used to load the needles or performing batch assays of a subset of the preloaded seed trains. Both of these methods are cumbersome and have the limitations inherent to sampling. The purpose of this work was to investigate an alternative approach that uses an image-based, autoradiographic system capable of the rapid and complete assay of all sources without compromising sterility. METHODS: The system consists of a flat panel image detector, an autoclavable needle holder, and software to analyze the detected signals. The needle holder was designed to maintain a fixed vertical spacing between the needles and the image detector, and to collimate the emissions from each seed. It also provides a sterile barrier between the needles and the imager. The image detector has a sufficiently large image capture area to allow several needles to be analyzed simultaneously.Several tests were performed to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of source strengths obtained using this system. Three different seed models (Oncura 6711 and 9011 (125)I seeds, and IsoAid Advantage (103)Pd seeds) were used in the evaluations. Seeds were loaded into trains with at least 1 cm spacing. RESULTS: Using our system, it was possible to obtain linear calibration curves with coverage factor k = 1 prediction intervals of less than ±2% near the centre of their range for the three source models. The uncertainty budget calculated from a combination of type A and type B estimates of potential sources of error was somewhat larger, yielding (k = 1) combined uncertainties for individual seed readings of 6.2% for (125)I 6711 seeds, 4.7% for (125)I 9011 seeds, and 11.0% for Advantage (103)Pd seeds. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that a flat panel detector dosimetry system is a viable option for source strength verification in preloaded needles, as it is capable of measuring all of the sources intended for implantation. Such a system has the potential to directly and efficiently estimate individual source strengths, the overall mean source strength, and the positions within the seed-spacer train.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207