MRI commissioning of 1.5T MR-linac systems – a multi-institutional study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Magnetic Resonance linear accelerator (MR-linac) systems represent a new type of technology that allows for online MR-guidance for high precision radiotherapy (RT). Currently, the first MR-linac installations are being introduced clinically. Since the imaging performance of these integrated MR-linac systems is critical for their application, a thorough commissioning of the MRI performance is essential. However, guidelines on the commissioning of MR-guided RT systems are not yet defined and data on the performance of MR-linacs are not yet available. MATERIALS & METHODS: Here we describe a comprehensive commissioning protocol, which contains standard MRI performance measurements as well as dedicated hybrid tests that specifically assess the interactions between the Linac and the MRI system. The commissioning results of four MR-linac systems are presented in a multi-center study. RESULTS: Although the four systems showed similar performance in all the standard MRI performance tests, some differences were observed relating to the hybrid character of the systems. Field homogeneity measurements identified differences in the gantry shim configuration, which was later confirmed by the vendor. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the importance of dedicated hybrid commissioning tests and the ability to compare the machines between institutes at this very early stage of clinical introduction. Until formal guidelines and tolerances are defined the tests described in this study may be used as a practical guideline. Moreover, the multi-center results provide initial bench mark data for future MR-linac installations.
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 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 it