Machine‐specific quality assurance procedure for stereotactic treatments with dynamic couch rotations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We present a method in which the treatment couch's accuracy is measured using the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and a phantom of our own construction. Using this phantom, we were able to quantify the treatment couch walkout, and the rotation angle accuracy for both static and dynamic couch treatments. These measurements were used to provide an accurate measure of the treatment couch isocenter as well as to verify the couch rotation angle recorded in the trajectory log. METHODS: The phantom was constructed using a polystyrene slab in which five ball bearings of 4 mm diameter are placed on the same plane at varying radii (0, 2.8, 4.4, 5.6, and 6.7 cm). The couch was rotated through its full extent (-90, 90 degrees) while MV images were acquired continuously. The couch rotational accuracy was calculated using a least squares minimization which fit the locations of the BBs to their expected locations relative to reference setup conditions. Using this approach, rotation angle and isocenter walkout was calculated in three dimensions. These measurements were used to quantify the accuracy of the couch as well as to validate the Varian TrueBeam trajectory logs. Additionally, a method for an EPID-based couch star-shot measurement was developed and compared with the traditional film-based method. RESULTS: The measured couch center of rotation consisted of a cloud of points clustered around the room isocenter within 0.7 mm distance. The trajectory log couch angle values agreed with those recorded in the DICOM header of the EPID images to the third significant digit and the couch rotation angles recorded in the trajectory log and DICOM header agreed with the calculated values to 0.08 degrees. Comparison of couch star-shot measurement developed in this study with film-based star-shot measurements gave an agreement to within 0.2 mm. CONCLUSION: We have developed a quality assurance method for the treatment couch which is simple, accurate, and enables the user to access a multitude of consistent data with a single measurement. Using this method, we have shown that the treatment couch is accurate for both static and dynamic stereotactic deliveries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".