Low-cost optical scanner and 3-dimensional printing technology to create lead shielding for radiation therapy of facial skin cancer: First clinical case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Three-dimensional printing has been implemented at our institution to create customized treatment accessories, including lead shields used during radiation therapy for facial skin cancer. To effectively use 3-dimensional printing, the topography of the patient must first be acquired. We evaluated a low-cost, structured-light, 3-dimensional, optical scanner to assess the clinical viability of this technology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For ease of use, the scanner was mounted to a simple gantry that guided its motion and maintained an optimum distance between the scanner and the object. To characterize the spatial accuracy of the scanner, we used a geometric phantom and an anthropomorphic head phantom. The geometric phantom was machined from plastic and included hemispherical and tetrahedral protrusions that were roughly the dimensions of an average forehead and nose, respectively. Polygon meshes acquired by the optical scanner were compared with meshes generated from high-resolution computed tomography images. Most optical scans contained minor artifacts. Using an algorithm that calculated the distances between the 2 meshes, we found that most of the optical scanner measurements agreed with those from the computed tomography scanner within approximately 1 mm for the geometric phantom and approximately 2 mm for the head phantom. We used this optical scanner along with 3-dimensional printer technology to create custom lead shields for 10 patients receiving orthovoltage treatments of nonmelanoma skin cancers of the face. Patient, tumor, and treatment data were documented. RESULTS: Lead shields created using this approach were accurate, fitting the contours of each patient's face. This process added to patient convenience and addressed potential claustrophobia and medical inability to lie supine. CONCLUSIONS: The scanner was found to be clinically acceptable, and we suggest that the use of an optical scanner and 3-dimensional printer technology become the new standard of care to generate lead shielding for orthovoltage radiation therapy of nonmelanoma facial skin cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".