AAPM recommendations on medical physics practices for ocular plaque brachytherapy: Report of task group 221
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) formed Task Group 221 (TG-221) to discuss a generalized commissioning process, quality management considerations, and clinical physics practice standards for ocular plaque brachytherapy. The purpose of this report is also, in part, to aid the clinician to implement recommendations of the AAPM TG-129 report, which placed emphasis on dosimetric considerations for ocular brachytherapy applicators used in the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS). This report is intended to assist medical physicists in establishing a new ocular brachytherapy program and, for existing programs, in reviewing and updating clinical practices. The report scope includes photon- and beta-emitting sources and source:applicator combinations. Dosimetric studies for photon and beta sources are reviewed to summarize the salient issues and provide references for additional study. The components of an ocular plaque brachytherapy quality management program are discussed, including radiation safety considerations, source calibration methodology, applicator commissioning, imaging quality assurance tests for treatment planning, treatment planning strategies, and treatment planning system commissioning. Finally, specific guidelines for commissioning an ocular plaque brachytherapy program, clinical physics practice standards in ocular plaque brachytherapy, and other areas reflecting the need for specialized treatment planning systems, measurement phantoms, and detectors (among other topics) to support the clinical practice of ocular brachytherapy are presented. Expected future advances and developments for ocular brachytherapy are discussed.
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 | 0.036 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
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".