MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319825975 · doi:10.1002/acm2.13916

MR‐linac daily semi‐automated end‐to‐end quality control verification

2023· article· en· W4319825975 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Malkov, Jeff D. Winter, Dan Mateescu, D. Létourneau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsocenterImaging phantomComputer scienceQuality assuranceTruebeamSoftwareFiducial markerMedical physicsNuclear medicineLinear particle acceleratorComputer visionMedicinePhysicsBeam (structure)Optics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Adaptive radiation therapy (ART) on the integrated Elekta Unity magnetic resonance (MR)-linac requires routine quality assurance to verify delivery accuracy and system data transfer. In this work, our objective was to develop and validate a novel automated end-to-end test suite that verifies data transfer between multiple software platforms and quantifies the performance of multiple machine subcomponents critical to the ART process. METHODS: We designed and implemented a software tool to quantify the MR and megavoltage (MV) isocenter coincidence, treatment couch positioning consistency, isocenter shift accuracy for the adapted plan as well as the MLC and jaw position accuracy following the beam aperture adaptation. Our tool employs a reference treatment plan with a simulated isocenter shift generated on an MR image of a readily available phantom with MR and MV visible fiducials. Execution of the test occurs within the standard adapt-to-position (ATP) clinical workflow with MV images collected of the delivered treatment fields. Using descriptive statistics, we quantified uncertainty in couch positioning, isocentre shift as well as the jaw and MLC positions of the adapted fields. We also executed sensitivity measurements to evaluate the detection algorithm's performance. RESULTS: We report the results of 301 daily testing instances. We demonstrated consistent tracking of the MR-to-MV alignment with respect to the established value and to detect small changes on the order of 0.2 mm following machine service events. We found couch position consistency relative to the test baseline value was within 95% CI [-0.31, 0.26 mm]. For phantom shifts that form the basis for the plan adaptation, we found agreement between MV-image-detected phantom shift and online image registration, within ± 1.5 mm in all directions with a 95% CI difference of [-1.29, 0.79 mm]. For beam aperture adaptation accuracy, we found differences between the planned and detected jaw positions had a mean value of 0.27 mm and 95% CI of [-0.29, 0.82 mm] and -0.17 mm and 95% CI of [-0.37, 0.05 mm] for the MLC positions. Automated fiducial detected accuracy was within 0.08 ± 0.20 mm of manual localization. Introduced jaw and MLC position errors (1-10 mm) were detected within 0.55 mm (within 1 mm for 15/256 instances for the jaws). Phantom shifts (1.3 or 5 mm in each cardinal direction) from a reference position were detected within 0.26 mm. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated the accuracy and sensitivity of a daily end-to-end test suite capable of detecting errors in multiple machine subcomponents including system data transfer. Our test suite evaluates the entire treatment workflow and has captured system communication issues prior to patient treatment. With automated processing and the use of a standard vendor-provided phantom, it is possible to expand to other Unity sites.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.377 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207