AAPM task group report 275.S: Survey strategy and results on plan review and chart check practices in US and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: AAPM Task Group (TG) 275 was charged with developing practical, evidence-based recommendations for physics plan and chart review clinical processes for radiation therapy. As part of this charge, and to characterize practices and clinical processes, a survey of the medical physics community was developed and conducted. Detailed analyses and trends based on the survey that exceeded TG report length constraints are presented herein. AIMS: The design, development, and detailed results of the TG- 275 survey as well as statistical analysis and trends are described in detail. This is complementary material to the TG 275 report. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The survey consisted of 100 multiple-choice questions divided into four main sections: 1) Demographics, 2) Initial Plan Check, 3) On-Treatment, and 4) End-of-Treatment Chart Check. The survey was released to all AAPM members who self-reported working in the radiation oncology field, and it was kept open for 7 weeks. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. To study practice differences, tests of association were performed using data grouped by four demographic questions: 1) Institution Type, 2) Average number of patients treated daily, 3) Radiation Oncology Electronic Medical Record, and 4) Perceived Culture of Safety. RESULTS: The survey captured 1370 non-duplicate entries from the United States and Canada. Differences across practices were grouped and presented based on Process-Based and Check-Specific questions. A risk-based summary was created to show differences amongst the four demographic questions for checks associated with the highest risk failure modes identified by TG-275. CONCLUSION: The TG-275 survey captured a baseline of practices on initial plan, on-treatment, and end-of-treatment checks across a wide variety of clinics and institutions. The results of test of association showed practice heterogeneities as a function of demographic characteristics. Survey data were successfully used to inform TG-275 recommendations.
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 | 0.025 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".