MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165413553 · doi:10.1002/mp.14992

AAPM Task Group 198 Report: An implementation guide for TG 142 quality assurance of medical accelerators

2021· article· en· W3165413553 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Hanley, Sean Dresser, W Simon, Ryan T. Flynn, Eric Klein, D. Létourneau, Chihray Liu, F Yin, B Arjomandy, Lijun Ma, Francisco Ayala Aguirre, J Jones, John E. Bayouth, Todd C. Holmes

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask groupQuality assuranceMedical physicsInterlockTask (project management)Test (biology)Test planComputer scienceMedicineEngineering managementMathematicsStatisticsEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The charges on this task group (TG) were as follows: (a) provide specific procedural guidelines for performing the tests recommended in TG 142; (b) provide estimate of the range of time, appropriate personnel, and qualifications necessary to complete the tests in TG 142; and (c) provide sample daily, weekly, monthly, or annual quality assurance (QA) forms. Many of the guidelines in this report are drawn from the literature and are included in the references. When literature was not available, specific test methods reflect the experiences of the TG members (e.g., a test method for door interlock is self-evident with no literature necessary). In other cases, the technology is so new that no literature for test methods was available. Given broad clinical adaptation of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), which is not a specific topic of TG 142, several tests and criteria specific to VMAT were added.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.095

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations195
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207