MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409137161 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/adc8f7

IPEM topical report: guidance for the use of linac manufacturer integrated quality control

2025· article· en· W4409137161 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Pearson, Michael P. Barnes, Kirstie Brown, Richard Delany, Simon W Stevens, Rakesh Kizhakke Veetil, S. Weston, Joe R. Whitbourn

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality assuranceProject commissioningMedical physicsComputer scienceLinear particle acceleratorTomotherapyQuality (philosophy)CyberknifeQuality controlReliability engineeringControl (management)MedicineEngineeringRadiosurgeryOperations managementArtificial intelligenceRadiation therapyPublishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This report provides guidance for users of linear accelerator (linac) manufacturer integrated quality control (MIQC) tools. MIQC tools have been developed and introduced by radiotherapy linac vendors, and have the potential to improve both the quality and efficiency of linac quality control (QC). They usually utilise the Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID), but may acquire data from other sources, and automatically perform and analyse tests of various treatment machine QC parameters. The currently available systems meeting this definition are Varian machine performance check, CyberKnife automated quality assurance /end-to-end, TomoTherapy Quality Assurance, and Elekta machine QA (also known as AQUA). This guidance report covers the commissioning and implementation of MIQC. The guidance has been developed by a radiotherapy special interest group working party on behalf of the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. Recommendations within the report are derived from the experience of the working party members, existing guidance, literature, and a United Kingdom survey conducted in 2022 (Pearson et al 2023 Phys. Med. Biol. 68 245018). Topics covered include developing an understanding of the QC system, independence review of MIQC, commissioning, implementation, ongoing QC and calibration, software upgrades and periodic review. The commissioning section covers detector commissioning, repeatability and reproducibility, baseline and tolerance setting, concordance with existing QC, sensitivity testing, cost-benefits analysis, and risk assessment methods. In order to offer practical guidance, case studies covering each aspect of commissioning are included. They are real-world examples or experiences from early adopters, each applied to a different example MIQC system. The examples will be directly applicable to users of that specific MIQC system, but also provide practical guidance on clinical implementation to users of the other systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.071

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and Biology→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→