MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164672446 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ac0680

Traceable reference dosimetry in MRI guided radiotherapy using alanine: calibration and magnetic field correction factors of ionisation chambers

2021· article· en· W3164672446 on OpenAlexaff
Ilias Billas, Hugo Bouchard, Uwe Oelfke, S Duane

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UK
KeywordsDosimetryCalibrationAbsorbed doseIonization chamberDosimeterNuclear medicineMagnetic fieldMedical physicsPhysicsMaterials scienceIonizationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiotherapy (RT) (MRIgRT) falls outside the scope of existing high energy photon therapy dosimetry protocols, because those protocols do not consider the effects of the magnetic field on detector response and on absorbed dose to water. The aim of this study is to evaluate and demonstrate the traceable measurement of absorbed dose in MRIgRT systems using alanine, made possible by the characterisation of alanine sensitivity to magnetic fields reported previously by Billas et al (2020 Phys. Med. Biol. 65 115001), in a way which is compatible with existing standards and calibrations available for conventional RT. In this study, alanine is used to transfer absorbed dose to water to MRIgRT systems from a conventional linac. This offers an alternative route for the traceable measurement of absorbed dose to water, one which is independent of the transfer using ionisation chambers. The alanine dosimetry is analysed in combination with measurements with several Farmer-type chambers, PTW 30013 and IBA FC65-G, at six different centres and two different MRIgRT systems (Elekta Unity™ and ViewRay MRIdian™). The results are analysed in terms of the magnetic field correction factors, and in terms of the absorbed dose calibration coefficients for the chambers, determined at each centre. This approach to reference dosimetry in MRIgRT produces good consistency in the results, across the centres visited, at the level of 0.4% (standard deviation). Farmer-type ionisation chamber magnetic field correction factors were determined directly, by comparing calibrations in some MRIgRT systems with and without the magnetic field ramped up, and indirectly, by comparing calibrations in all the MRIgRT systems with calibrations in a conventional linac. Calibration coefficients in the MRIgRT systems were obtained with a standard uncertainty of 1.1% (Elekta Unity™) and 0.9% (ViewRay MRIdian™), for three different chamber orientations with respect to the magnetic field. The values obtained for the magnetic field correction factor in this investigation are consistent with those presented in the summary by de Pooter et al (2021 Phys. Med. Biol. 66 05TR02), and would tend to support the adoption of a magnetic field correction factor which depends on the chamber type, PTW 30013 or IBA FC65-G.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207