Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, steady progress has been made towards the implementation of MRI in external beam radiation therapy for processes ranging from treatment simulation to in‐room guidance. Novel procedures relying mostly on MR data are currently implemented in the clinic. This session will cover topics such as (a) commissioning and quality control of the MR in‐room imagers and simulators specific to RT, (b) treatment planning requirements, constraints and challenges when dealing with various MR data, (c) quantification of organ motion with an emphasis on treatment delivery guidance, and (d) MR‐driven strategies for adaptive RT workflows. The content of the session was chosen to address both educational and practical key aspects of MR guidance. Learning Objectives: Good understanding of MR testing recommended for in‐room MR imaging as well as image data validation for RT chain (e.g. image transfer, filtering for consistency, spatial accuracy, manipulation for task specific); Familiarity with MR‐based planning procedures: motivation, core workflow requirements, current status, challenges; Overview of the current methods for the quantification of organ motion; Discussion on approaches for adaptive treatment planning and delivery. T. Stanescu ‐ License agreement with Modus Medical Devices to develop a phantom for the quantification of MR image system‐related distortions.; T. Stanescu, N/A
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.028 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".