MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2470014579 · doi:10.1118/1.4956715

SU‐F‐T‐530: Characterization of a 60‐Leaf Motorized MLC Designed for Cobalt‐60 Units

2016· article· en· W2470014579 on OpenAlexaff
Lantian Xu, Lachlan J. Smith, A Ciresianu

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsBest Theratronics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomField sizeMaterials scienceCobalt-60DosimetryDiodeLinear particle acceleratorDiamondLeakage (economics)OpticsRadiationNuclear medicineBiomedical engineeringPhysicsOptoelectronicsIrradiationMedicineNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: In a continuing effort to improve conformal radiation therapy with Cobalt‐60 units, a 60‐leaf MLC was designed, manufactured, and released to market. This work describes the physics measurements taken to characterize the clinical performance of this MLC. Methods: A 60 leaf MLC was custom designed with tungsten leaves of 4.5 cm height, single focused, achieving field size of 30×30 cm^2 when mounted on a 100cm SAD Cobalt‐60 unit. Leakage and output factor measurements were performed using a single ion chamber in a solid water phantom. Penumbra and surface dose were measured using scanning chambers and diodes in a water phantom. Radiation‐light coincidence measurements were performed using radiographic films. Results: With MLC mounted, measured penumbras at all depths are smaller than with jaws only. Surface doses were not significantly affected by the presence of MLC, and remained below values recommended by regulatory bodies. Light‐radiation coincidences were found to be better than 3 mm for all field sizes. Leakage through the MLC was found to be strongly dependent on field size, increasing from 1.0 % for a 10×10 cm field to 2.0% for a 30×30 cm field. Such results meet the requirements of IEC 60601‐2‐11. The MLC was found to have significant influence on the output factor, when field size defined by MLC is significantly smaller than field size defined by jaws. Such effect is also observed on linear accelerators, but it is more pronounced on Cobalt‐60 units. A 10×10 “diamond” MLC shape inside a 14×14 cm jaw showed output factor that is 5.7% higher than 10×10 cm field defined by matching MLC and jaws. Conclusion: The MLC offers clinically acceptable performance in penumbra, surface dose, and light‐radiation coincidence. Several units of this MLC have recently been installed and used clinically. Validation of Cobalt‐60 based IMRT with this MLC is ongoing. The authors are employees of Best Theratrnics Ltd.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→