Anticipating potential bottlenecks in adaptive proton FLASH therapy: a ridge filter reuse strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. Achieving FLASH dose rate with pencil beam scanning intensity modulated proton therapy is challenging. However, utilizing a single energy layer with a ridge filter (RF) can maintain dose rate and conformality. Yet, changes in patient anatomy over the treatment course can render the RF obsolete. Unfortunately, creating a new RF is time-consuming, thus, incompatible with online adaptation. To address this, we propose to re-optimize the spot weights while keeping the same initial RF. Approach. Data from six head and neck cancer patients with a repeated computed tomography (CT2) were used. FLASH treatment plans were generated with three methods on CT2: ‘full-adaptation’ (FA), optimized from scratch with a new RF; ‘spot-adaptation only’ (SAO), re-using initial RF but adjusting plan spot weights; and ‘no adaptation’ (NoA) where the dose from initial plans on initial CT (CT1) was recomputed on CT2. The prescribed dose per fraction was 9 Gy. Different beam angles were tested for each CT2 (1 beam per fraction). The FA, SAO and NoA plans were then compared on CT2. Main results. Fractions with SAO showed a median decrease of 0.05 Gy for D98% and a median increase of 0.03 Gy for D2% of CTV when compared to their homologous FA plans on nominal case. Median conformity number decreased by 0.03. Median max dose to spinal cord increased by 0.09 Gy. The largest median increase in mean dose to organs was 0.03 Gy to the mandible. The largest observed median difference in organs receiving a minimal dose rate of 40 Gy s−1 was 0.5% for the mandible. Up to 16 of the 20 evaluated SAO fractions were thus deemed clinically acceptable, with up to 8 NoA plans already acceptable before adaptation. Significance. Proposed SAO workflow showed that for most of our evaluated plans, daily reprinting of RF was not necessary.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".