MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782104550 · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/aaa4c6

Comprehensive fluence delivery optimization with multileaf collimation

2018· article· en· W2782104550 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 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollimated lightFluenceMaterials scienceComputer scienceOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We propose a novel comprehensive model of the dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC) sequencing problem under the sliding window technique. While the majority of research regarding MLC sequencing has lain dormant for years, leaf sequencing is currently done via ‘black-box’ implementations in clinical cancer treatment planning software. As such, it is unclear which leaf motion and fluence transmission parameters are included in these models, given their widely varying analytic and heuristic treatment in the existing literature. We hypothesize that an explicit, comprehensive model may fill an essential role in further research into intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy. To this end, we consolidate considerations of leaf motion (maximum velocity, finite acceleration), transmission (through-leaf, inter-leaf via tongue and groove) and novel formulations for penumbra across both dimensions of the field. In addition, we formulate our model to utilize these varying transmission effects to optimally sequence leaves with the goal of creating a fluence with pixel size smaller than the narrowest leaf width. To evaluate the proposed model, we have optimized MLC leaf sequencing on 25 prostate, 25 head and neck, 25 pelvis and 35 breast cancer fluence fields. The output sequenced fluences with and without constraints were compared with the corresponding reference fluences, respectively, by the performance of root mean square error and gamma index analysis. The acceptance criteria of 0.5%/0.5 mm and 1%/1 mm were used with a 0%, 5% and 10% low intensity threshold, respectively. Under the consideration of aforementioned constraints, the model can sequence the reference fluence successfully with the percentage of gamma passing rate ranging from 82.23 ± 3.89 to 99.78 ± 0.16 at 0.5%/0.5 mm and from 88.24 ± 1.89 to 99.98 ± 0.03 at 1%/1 mm across all low intensity thresholds and four treatment sites.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.227 · 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