Sci‐Fri PM: Radiation Therapy, Planning, Imaging, and Special Techniques ‐ 05: A novel respiratory motion simulation program for VMAT treatment plans: a phantom validation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To develop and validate a computational method to simulate craniocaudal respiratory motion in a VMAT treatment plan. Methods: Three 4DCTs of the QUASAR respiratory motion phantom were acquired with a 2cm water‐density spherical tumour embedded in cedar to simulate lung. The phantom was oscillating sinusoidally with an amplitude of 2cm and periods of 3, 4, and 5 seconds. An ITV was contoured and 5mm PTV margin was added. High and a low modulation factor VMAT plans were created for each scan. An in‐house program was developed to simulate respiratory motion in the treatment plans by shifting the MLC leaf positions relative to the phantom. Each plan was delivered to the phantom and the dose was measured using Gafchromic film. The measured and calculated plans were compared using an absolute dose gamma analysis (3%/3mm). Results: The average gamma pass rate for the low modulation plan and high modulation plans were 91.1% and 51.4% respectively. The difference between the high and low modulation plans gamma pass rates is likely related to the different sampling frequency of the respiratory curve and the higher MLC leaf speeds in the high modulation plan. A high modulation plan has a slower gantry speed and therefore samples the breathing cycle at a coarser frequency leading to inaccuracies between the measured and planned doses. Conclusion: A simple program, including a novel method for increasing sampling frequency beyond the control point frequency, has been developed to simulate respiratory motion in VMAT plans by shifting the MLC leaf positions.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".