SU‐F‐T‐527: A Novel Dynamic Multileaf Collimator Leaf‐Sequencing Algorithm in Radiation Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: A novel leaf‐sequencing algorithm is developed for generating arbitrary beam intensity profiles in discrete levels using dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC). The efficiency of this dynamic MLC leaf‐sequencing method was evaluated using external beam treatment plans delivered by intensity modulated radiation therapy technique. Methods: To qualify and validate this algorithm, integral test for the beam segment of MLC generated by the CORVUS treatment planning system was performed with clinical intensity map experiments. The treatment plans were optimized and the fluence maps for all photon beams were determined. This algorithm started with the algebraic expression for the area under the beam profile. The coefficients in the expression can be transformed into the specifications for the leaf‐setting sequence. The leaf optimization procedure was then applied and analyzed for clinical relevant intensity profiles in cancer treatment. Results: The macrophysical effect of this method can be described by volumetric plan evaluation tools such as dose‐volume histograms (DVHs). The DVH results are in good agreement compared to those from the CORVUS treatment planning system. Conclusion: We developed a dynamic MLC method to examine the stability of leaf speed including effects of acceleration and deceleration of leaf motion in order to make sure the stability of leaf speed did not affect the intensity profile generated. It was found that the mechanical requirements were better satisfied using this method. The Project is sponsored by the Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".