A modern mold room: Meshing 3D surface scanning, digital design, and 3D printing with bolus fabrication
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
PURPOSE: This case series represents an initial experience with implementing 3-dimensional (3D) surface scanning, digital design, and 3D printing for bolus fabrication for patients with complex surface anatomy where traditional approaches are challenging. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 10 patients requiring bolus in regions with complex contours, bolus was designed digitally from 3D surface scanning data or computed tomography (CT) images using either a treatment planning system or mesh editing software. Boluses were printed using a fused deposition modeling printer with polylactic acid. Quality assurance tests were performed for each printed bolus to verify density and shape. RESULTS: For 9 of 10 patients, digitally designed boluses were used for treatment with no issues. In 1 case, the bolus was not used because dosimetric requirements were met without the bolus. QA tests revealed that the bulk density was within 3% of the reference value for 9 of 12 prints, and with more judicious selection of print settings this could be increased. For these 9 prints, density uniformity was as good as or better than our traditional sheet bolus material. The average shape error of the pieces was less than 0.5 mm, and no issues with fit or comfort were encountered during use. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that new technologies such as 3D surface scanning, digital design and 3D printing can be safely and effectively used to modernize bolus fabrication.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it