MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2517206896 · doi:10.1118/1.4961787

Poster – 13: Evaluation of an in‐house CCD camera film dosimetry imaging system for small field deliveries

2016· article· en· W2517206896 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Lalonde, Kevin Alexander, Tim Olding, L J Schreiner, A Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimetryImaging phantomDosimeterReproducibilityNuclear medicineMaterials scienceQuality assuranceMedical physicsScannerBiomedical engineeringOpticsMedicinePhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Radiochromic film dosimetry is a standard technique used in clinics to verify modern conformal radiation therapy delivery, and sometimes in research to validate other dosimeters. We are using film as a standard for comparison as we improve high‐resolution three‐dimensional gel systems for small field dosimetry; however, precise film dosimetry can be technically challenging. We report here measurements for fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (FSRT) delivered using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to investigate the accuracy and reproducibility of film measurements with a novel in‐house readout system. We show that radiochromic film can accurately and reproducibly validate FSRT deliveries and also benchmark our gel dosimetry work. Methods: VMAT FSRT plans for metastases alone (PTVMET) and whole brain plus metastases (WB+PTVMET) were delivered onto a multi‐configurational phantom with a sheet of EBT3 Gafchromic film inserted mid‐plane. A dose of 400 cGy was prescribed to 4 small PTVMET structures in the phantom, while a WB structure was prescribed a dose of 200 cGy in the WB+PTVMET iterations. Doses generated from film readout with our in‐house system were compared to treatment planned doses. Each delivery was repeated multiple times to assess reproducibility. Results and Conclusions: The reproducibility of film optical density readout was excellent throughout all experiments. Doses measured from the film agreed well with plans for the WB+PTVMET delivery. But, film doses for PTVMET only deliveries were significantly below planned doses. This discrepancy is due to stray/scattered light perturbations in our system during readout. Corrections schemes will be presented.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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