Dynamic anthropomorphic thorax phantom for quality assurance of motion management in radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose: Motion management techniques are important to spare the healthy tissue adequately. However, they are complex and need dedicated quality assurance. The aim of this study was to create a dynamic phantom designed for quality assurance and to replicate a patient's size, anatomy, and tissue density. Materials and methods: A computed tomography (CT) scan of a cancer patient was used to create molds for the lungs, heart, ribs, and vertebral column via additive manufacturing. A pump system and software were developed to simulate respiratory dynamics. The extent of respiratory motion was quantified using a 4DCT scan. End-to-end tests were conducted to evaluate two motion management techniques for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Results: The chest wall moved between 4 mm and 13 mm anteriorly and 2 mm to 7 mm laterally during the breathing. The diaphragm exhibited superior-inferior movement ranging from 5 mm to 16 mm in the left lung and 10 mm to 36 mm in the right lung. The left lung tumor displaced ± 7 mm superior-inferiorly and anterior-posteriorly. The CT numbers were for lung: -716 ± 108 HU (phantom) and -713 ± 70 HU (patient); bone: 460 ± 20 HU (phantom) and 458 ± 206 HU (patient); soft tissue: 92 ± 9 HU (phantom) and 60 ± 25 HU (patient). The end-to-end testing showed an excellent agreement between the measured and the calculated dose for ion chamber and film dosimetry. Conclusions: The phantom is recommended for quality assurance, evaluating the institution's specific planning and motion management strategies either through end-to-end testing or as an external audit phantom.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".