Clinical applicability of Linac-integrated CBCT based NIPAM 3D dosimetry: a dual-institutional investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. To develop and benchmark a novel 3D dose verification technique consisting of polymer gel dosimetry (PGD) with cone-beam-CT (CBCT) readout through a two-institution study. The technique has potential for wide and robust applicability through reliance on CBCT readout. Approach. Three treatment plans (3-field, TG119-C-shape spine, 4-target SRS) were created by two independent institutions (Institutions A and B). A Varian Truebeam linear accelerator was used to deliver the plans to NIPAM polymer gel dosimeters produced at both institutions using an identical approach. For readout, a slow CBCT scan mode was used to acquire pre- and post-irradiation images of the gel (1 mm slice thickness). Independent gel analysis tools were used to process the PGD images (A: VistaAce software, B: in-house MATLAB code). Comparing planned and measured doses, the analysis involved a combination of 1D line profiles, 2D contour plots, and 3D global gamma maps (criteria ranging between 2%1 mm and 5%2 mm, with a 10% dose threshold). Main results. For all gamma criteria tested, the 3D gamma pass rates were all above 90% for 3-field and 88% for the SRS plan. For the C-shape spine plan, we benchmarked our 2% 2 mm result against previously published work using film analysis (93.4%). For 2%2 mm, 99.4% (Institution A data), and 89.7% (Institution B data) were obtained based on VistaAce software analysis, 83.7% (Institution A data), and 82.9% (Institution B data) based on MATLAB. Significance. The benchmark data demonstrate that when two institutions follow the same rigorous procedures gamma passing rates up to 99%, for 2%2 mm criteria can be achieved for substantively different treatment plans. The use of different software and calibration techniques may have contributed to the variation in the 3D gamma results. By sharing the data across institutions, we observe the gamma passing rate is more consistent within each pipeline, indicating the need for standardized analysis methods.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".