MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2513288600 · doi:10.1118/1.4961761

Sci‐Thur PM – Colourful Interactions: Highlights 01: Design to delivery of spatially fractionated mini‐beam canine radiotherapy

2016· article· en· W2513288600 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Alexander, Cody Crewson, W. M. Davis, Monique N Mayer, Gavin Cranmer‐Sargison, Vijayananda Kundapur

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollimatorWorkflowRadiation treatment planningRadiation therapyLinear particle acceleratorDosimetryEclipseNuclear medicineFiducial markerMaterials scienceComputer scienceBeam (structure)OpticsPhysicsMedicineRadiologyArtificial intelligenceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial fractionation of radiation using arrays of narrow parallel micro‐planar beams (less than 1 mm), is a relatively new concept with many unknowns specifically within the underlying biology of cell death. A tungsten collimator has been designed to produce mini‐beams with a Varian linear accelerator for translational animal research into the effectiveness of spatial fractionation mini‐beam radiotherapy (MBRT). This work presents the treatment planning process and workflow for the application of MBRT treatments within a clinical study. For patient dose calculations, the MBRT collimator was incorporated into a Monte Carlo based treatment planning system called MMCTP. Treatment planning was split between Eclipse and MMCTP, as the field apertures were determined within Eclipse prior to being sent to MMCTP for dose calculations. The calculated plan was transferred back into Aria with updated MUs per field for patient treatment. Patients were positioned within a vac‐lock bag lying prone with a bite block and a thermoplastic mask to immobilize the head. Prior to treatment, a delivery verification plan was created within MMCTP. DQA output measurements of the treatment fields agreed with the calculated dose to within 1.5%. We have presented a workflow for MBRT treatments that include the planning technique, dose calculation method, DQA process and data integration into a record and verify system. The clinical study following this workflow represent the first series of linac based MBRT patients and depending on the clinical outcome of the study, our technique could be applied to human MBRT treatments.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.008

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.272 · 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→