MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566733745 · doi:10.1002/mp.12005

Technical Note: Issues related to external marker block placement for deep inspiration breath hold breast radiotherapy

2017· article· en· W2566733745 on OpenAlexaff
Leigh Conroy, Alexandra Guebert, Wendy Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlock (permutation group theory)Nuclear medicineRadiation therapyMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingMedical imagingBreast cancerDisplacement (psychology)PhysicsRadiologyGeometryCancerMathematicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose It has been suggested that the Real‐time Position Management (RPM) marker block should be placed directly on the breast or sternum to verify deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) level for breast radiotherapy. We explore three potential issues with this practice: (a) surface dose effect of placing the marker block in the primary beam; (b) effect of marker block tilt on the accuracy of the RPM system; and (c) correlation between marker block positions on the patient surface and internal chest wall position. Methods (a) The surface dose under the two‐, four‐, and six‐dot marker blocks was measured at incident angles of 0° and 30°; (b) the motion amplitude detected when using the two‐ and six‐dot marker blocks was recorded for block tilts from 0° to 60° about the RPM camera line of sight; (c) the correlation between median displacement of the chest wall and median displacement of the surface contour between breath holds was investigated for superior, middle, and inferior block positions using contours extracted from portal images of eight left‐sided breast cancer patients. Results (a) The marker blocks increased the surface dose for a 6 MV direct field by 48.2–52.2% of Dmax; (b) at lateral tilts greater than 10°, the two‐dot marker block overestimated the motion amplitude; however, the six‐dot marker block amplitude remained accurate up to 60°; (c) the whole, superior, and middle surface positions were strongly correlated with chest wall displacement (R2 = 0.83; R2 = 0.90; R2 = 0.83), whereas the inferior position was moderately correlated (R2 = 0.36). Conclusions The RPM marker block can be placed on the breast for DIBH treatments; however, caution should be used regarding surface dose effects. The two‐dot marker block should not be used for block tilts beyond 20°. Marker block placement at a middle or superior position on the breast results in the strongest correlation with chest wall position.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207