Validation of spine SBRT using a 3D printed Anthropomorphic phantom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A segment of a spine was 3D-printed based on real patient anatomy, using metal-doped high density plastic to radiographically mimic bone. This spine was submerged in a water tank to create an anthropomorphic phantom. The spine print incorporated a slot for Gafchromic EBT3 film dosimeters and fiducials for alignment of measured and calculated dose distributions. Spine SBRT treatment plans were generated for both 6 MV and 10FFF energies based on oncologist-drawn contours transferred from real anatomy. Plans were delivered under image guidance using our clinical procedures, to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of our planning system in high density inhomogeneities and the geometric accuracy of delivery. Results show that the Acuros XB algorithm (dose-to-water) agrees well with film measurements throughout the measured region, including within the bone substitute material. Alignment of the steep dose gradients in planned and measured doses was within 0.5 mm in the ANT-POST direction and within 0.9 mm in the SUP-INF direction, both within machine tolerances. Our results give us confidence in our ability to plan and accurately deliver spinal SBRT treatments.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".