Acomprehensive computer database for medical physics on-call program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: A comprehensive and robust computer database was built to record and analyse the medical physics on-call data in emergency radiotherapy. The probability distributions of the on-call events varying with day and week were studied. Materials and methods: Variables of medical physics on-call events such as date and time of the event, number of event per day/week/month, treatment site of the event and identity of the on-call physicist were input to a programmed Excel file. The Excel file was linked to the MATLAB platform for data transfer and analysis. The total number of on-call events per day in a week and per month in a year were calculated based on the physics on-call data in 2010–18. In addition, probability distributions of on-call events varying with days in a week (Monday–Sunday) and months (January–December) in a year were determined. Results: For the total number of medical physics on-call events per week in 2010–18, it was found that the number was similar from Sundays to Thursdays but increased significantly on Fridays before the weekend. The total number of events in a year showed that the physics on-call events increased gradually from January up to March, then decreased in April and slowly increased until another peak in September. The number of events decreased in October from September, and increased again to reach another peak in December. It should be noted that March, September and December are months close to Easter, Labour Day and Christmas, when radiation staff usually take long holidays. Conclusions: A database to record and analyse the medical physics on-call data was created. Different variables such as the number of events per week and per year could be plotted. This roster could consider the statistical results to prepare a schedule with better balance of workload compared with scheduling it randomly. Moreover, the emergency radiotherapy team could use the analysed results to enhance their budget/resource allocation and strategic planning.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".