An EPID‐based method to determine mechanical deformations in a linear accelerator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Medical linear accelerators (linac) are delivering increasingly complex treatments using modern techniques in radiation therapy. Complete and precise mechanical QA of the linac is therefore necessary to ensure that there is no unexpected deviation from the gantry's planned course. However, state-of-the-art EPID-based mechanical QA procedures often neglect some degrees of freedom (DOF) like the in-plane rotations of the gantry and imager or the source movements inside the gantry head. Therefore, the purpose of this work is to characterize a 14 DOF method for the mechanical QA of linacs. This method seeks to measure every mechanical deformation in a linac, including source movements, in addition to relevant clinical parameters like mechanical and radiation isocenters. METHODS: A widely available commercial phantom and a custom-made accessory inserted in the linac's interface mount are imaged using the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) at multiple gantry angles. Then, simulated images are generated using the nominal geometry of the linac and digitized models of the phantoms. The nominal geometry used to generate these images can be modified using 14 DOF (3 rigid rotations and 3 translations for the imager and the gantry, and 2 in-plane translations of the source) and any change will modify the simulated image. The set of mechanical deformations that minimizes the differences between the simulated and measured image is found using a genetic algorithm coupled with a gradient-descent optimizer. Phantom mispositioning and gantry angular offset were subsequently calculated and extracted from the results. Simulations of the performances of the method for different levels of noise in the phantom models were performed to calculate the absolute uncertainty of the measured mechanical deformations. The measured source positions and the center of collimation were used to define the beam central axis and calculate the radiation isocenter position and radius. RESULTS: After the simultaneous optimization of the 14 DOF, the average distance between the center of the measured and simulated ball bearings on the imager was 0.086 mm. Over the course of a full counter-clockwise gantry rotation, all mechanical deformations were measured, showing sub-millimeter translations and rotations smaller than 1° along every axis. The average absolute uncertainty of the 14 DOF (1 SD) was 0.15 mm or degree. Phantom positioning errors were determined with more than 0.1 mm precision. Errors introduced in the experimental setup like phantom positioning errors, source movements or gantry angular offsets were all successfully detected by our QA method. The mechanical deformations measured are shown to be reproducible over the course of a few weeks and are not sensitive to the experimental setup. CONCLUSION: This work presents of new method for an accurate mechanical QA of the linacs. It features a 14 DOF model of the mechanical deformations that is both more complete and precise than other available methods. It has demonstrated sub-millimeter accuracy through simulation and experimentation. Introduced errors were successfully detected with high precision.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".