Sci‐Fri AM: Quality, Safety, and Professional Issues 05: QC Program Management and the Benefits of QATrack+
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Treatment unit uptime statistics are typically used to monitor radiation equipment performance. The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre has introduced the use of Quality Control (QC) test success as a quality indicator for equipment performance and overall health of the equipment QC program. Methods: Implemented in 2012, QATrack+ is used to record and monitor over 1100 routine machine QC tests each month for 20 treatment and imaging units ( http://qatrackplus.com/ ). Using an SQL (structured query language) script, automated queries of the QATrack+ database are used to generate program metrics such as the number of QC tests executed and the percentage of tests passing, at tolerance or at action. These metrics are compared against machine uptime statistics already reported within the program. Results: Program metrics for 2015 show good correlation between pass rate of QC tests and uptime for a given machine. For the nine conventional linacs, the QC test success rate was consistently greater than 97%. The corresponding uptimes for these units are better than 98%. Machines that consistently show higher failure or tolerance rates in the QC tests have lower uptimes. This points to either poor machine performance requiring corrective action or to problems with the QC program. Conclusions: QATrack+ significantly improves the organization of QC data but can also aid in overall equipment management. Complimenting machine uptime statistics with QC test metrics provides a more complete picture of overall machine performance and can be used to identify areas of improvement in the machine service and QC programs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".