Technical Note: A standardized automation framework for monitoring institutional radiotherapy protocol compliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To establish a framework for the standardization of monitoring radiotherapy protocol compliance. METHODS: An automated protocol compliance tool was developed using best practice in software design and a flexible framework to easily adapt to changing institutional standards. The Eclipse scripting environment was used to develop the application with the scripting application programing interface (API) and direct data extraction from ARIA. For each institutional protocol, external validation was specified in a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) file that stores protocol specific constraints and evaluates compliance of the data from Eclipse and Aria. This tool was applied prospectively to a cohort of prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy with a prescription regimen of 60 Gy in 20 fractions. RESULTS: The prospective evaluation was performed on 58 prostate cancer patients. For this cohort, the mean (standard deviation) pass rate is 92.3% (6.1%). The overall fail rate is 6.0% (5.8%); the percentage of these failures is in 2.6% in Patient Assessment, 0% in Simulation, and 97.4% in Treatment Planning. CONCLUSIONS: A protocol compliance application is developed and implemented in a standard radiotherapy information system. The application functionality is demonstrated on a cohort of 58 patients undergoing prostate radiotherapy, which highlights the utility of assessing adherence to institutional protocols. A unified method must be available for the community to ensure consistency in compliance reporting.
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 | 0.115 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".