Beam selection for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy using Cyberknife with multileaf collimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cyberknife system (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) enables radiotherapy using stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) with a large number of non-coplanar beam orientations. Recently, a multileaf collimator has also been available to allow flexibility in field shaping. This work aims to evaluate the quality of treatment plans obtainable with the multileaf collimator. Specifically, the aim is to find a subset of beam orientations from a predetermined set of candidate directions, such that the treatment quality is maintained but the treatment time is reduced. An evolutionary algorithm is used to successively refine a randomly selected starting set of beam orientations. By using an efficient computational framework, clinically useful solutions can be found in several hours. It is found that 15 beam orientations are able to provide treatment quality which approaches that of the candidate beam set of 110 beam orientations, but with approximately half of the estimated treatment time. Choice of an efficient subset of beam orientations offers the possibility to improve the patient experience and maximise the number of patients treated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".