Continuous aperture dose calculation and optimization for volumetric modulated arc therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although VMAT delivery features continuous gantry rotation and leaf motion, dose calculation is often performed under the dual assumption of discrete apertures changing instantaneously from one discrete angle to the next. In this work, the validity of these two approximations is determined, as well as their impact on the quality of optimized plans. Further, an accurate method of fluence calculation is derived which does not use the discrete aperture approximation, but instead calculates the fluence as the multi-leaf collimator leaves sweep from one position to another. This continuous aperture fluence calculation is integrated in the VMAT optimization process using the open-source treatment planning system matRad. The three-step approach of VMAT optimization is used: fluence map optimization followed by leaf sequencing and direct aperture optimization, with variable leaf speed, gantry rotation speed, and MU rate. The benefit of the continuous aperture VMAT method over the discrete aperture method is determined by comparing the plan quality of discrete aperture and continuous aperture optimized plans, when the former is recalculated using the continuous aperture fluence calculation. Discrete aperture VMAT plans calculated at 4° spacing result in significant dose errors (10%-35%, depending on the anatomical site) as compared to the reference dose (continuous aperture fluence calculation at 0.5° spacing). These errors are greatly reduced (to 0.8%-2%) when the continuous aperture fluence calculation method was used at the same 4° spacing, implying that the dose error is primarily due to the discrete aperture approximation. Whereas all dose objectives were met by the discrete aperture VMAT optimized plan, many of them failed when the dose was recalculated with the continuous aperture fluence calculation. All objectives were met once again when the plan was optimized with the new continuous aperture VMAT optimization. Further, using only half of the beam angles, the continuous aperture VMAT optimization can achieve the same degree of accuracy with only 40% of the computing time as compared with the standard discrete aperture VMAT.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".