Recommendations for using analytical anisotropic algorithm and AcurosXB for epidermal dose calculations in breast radiotherapy from an in vivo Gafchromic film study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study recommends clinical epidermal dose calculation methods based on in-vivo film measurements and registered skin dose distributions with the Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) treatment planning system's Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation algorithms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen AAA V13.6 breast plans were recalculated using AXB (dose to medium) V13.5 with the same beam parameters and monitor units as in the original plans. These are compared against in-vivo Gafchromic film measurements from the lateral and inferior breast regions. Three skin structures in the treatment planning system are evaluated: a surface layer of voxels of the body contour, a 0.2 cm internal skin rind, and a 0.5 cm internal skin rind. RESULTS: Systematic shifts are demonstrated between the film measurements of skin dose and the Eclipse dose calculations. On average, the dose to the surface layer of pixels is underestimated by AAA by 8% and overestimated by AXB by 3%. A 5 mm skin rind extended into the body can increase epidermal dose calculations on average by 8% for AAA and 4% for AXB. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to register in-vivo skin dose distributions in the breast to the treatment planning system for comparison. Based on the results from this study it is recommended that epidermal dose is calculated with a 0.5 cm skin rind for the AAA algorithm and with rind thickness up to 0.2 cm for the AXB algorithm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".