MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775598869 · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/aaa162

Dosimetric effects of incorrect jaw settings in cranial radiosurgery

2017· article· en· W2775598869 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Physics & Engineering Express · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsJoint Attosecond Science Laboratory
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsocenterRadiosurgeryMedicineRadiation treatment planningNuclear medicineLinear particle acceleratorCone beam computed tomographyTrigeminal neuralgiaField sizeDosimetryRadiation therapyBeam (structure)RadiologySurgeryOpticsPhysicsComputed tomographyImaging phantom

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A small circular field used in stereotactic radiosurgery is obtained using a cone accessory attached to a LINAC. Such beam modification requires that the LINAC jaws be set to a specific size, an adjustment which, in many cases, must be explicitly made by the LINAC operator. Given that treatment planning systems are commissioned with correct jaw settings, it is difficult to quantify the leakage dose to the patient when the jaw setting is larger than recommended. However, there are documented cases indicating that the resulting overexposure can lead to long-term disability and death. This study quantifies the dose differences between correct and incorrect jaw settings by simulating a realistic treatment plan using a Varian LINAC with a BrainLab circular cone accessory. Using Monte Carlo methods, the details of the LINAC head and cone accessory were simulated, with calculated doses benchmarked against measurements. Calculations were based on a realistic treatment plan for right side trigeminal neuralgia delivering 90 Gy using a 6 MV (4 mm cone) beam with 7 arcs. The calculated doses to target and normal tissue with jaws set correctly (5 × 5 cm 2 ) and incorrectly (settings ranging from 10 × 10 cm 2 to 20 × 20 cm 2 ) were then compared. Incorrect jaw settings resulted in an increase in the target dose of less than 6%. This implies that pre-treatment QA based only on point dose measurements at the isocenter will not detect jaw setting errors. However, extremely high doses (>25 Gy) occurred 5 cm away from the isocenter. For example, dose to 50% of the volume, D 50 , in the eyes increased from 15 cGy with the correct jaw setting to 5318 cGy with an incorrect jaw setting of 20 × 20 cm 2 . D 50 in the brain increased from 27 cGy with the correct jaw setting to 4335 cGy for a setting of 20 × 20 cm 2 . The leakage radiation is shown to originate beyond the outer edge of the beam limiting cone (outer radius = 5 cm). Leakage dose can reach 15%, 40%, and 60% of target dose when incorrect jaw settings of 10 × 10 cm 2 , 15 × 15 cm 2 and 20 × 20 cm 2 are used in the beam delivery.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.234 · 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