MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413258237 · doi:10.1002/acm2.70210

Application of a model‐based water‐equivalent EPID image conversion algorithm for linac beam QA

2025· article· en· W4413258237 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Kutuzov, Boyd McCurdy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear particle acceleratorFlatness (cosmology)Ionization chamberImage-guided radiation therapyBeam (structure)OpticsQuality assurancePhysicsLaser beam qualityComputer scienceAlgorithmMedical imagingArtificial intelligenceLaserEngineeringIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The nonwater-equivalent energy response of electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) is a major obstacle to using them for linear accelerator (linac) beam parameter verification. In this study, we propose an EPID-based machine quality assurance (QA) application that uses a model-based radiation transport algorithm to convert EPID-measured images into water-equivalent dose distributions that can be used to assess beam flatness and symmetry. METHODS: An in-house developed, model-based radiation transport algorithm was used to estimate the incident beam fluence from measured EPID images and convert it into either 3D dose distributions in a virtual water tank or 2D water-equivalent dose distributions in a virtual ion chamber array. The conversion algorithm was validated using independent measurements in a scanning water tank and a reference ion chamber array under symmetric and also intentionally detuned (i.e., asymmetric) beam conditions. RESULTS: For symmetric fields, EPID-reconstructed percentage depth dose distributions (PDDs) agreed with water tank measurements to within 1% beyond the first 10 mm of depth. Beam profile comparisons showed differences within 1% in low dose-gradient regions. For all symmetric and intentionally asymmetric fields, beam flatness and symmetry derived from reconstructed images agreed with reference measurements to within 0.2% and 0.3%, respectively. The model demonstrated high sensitivity to the controlled beam asymmetries and steering distortions, with EPID-reconstructed metrics closely matching reference water-equivalent measurements and significantly outperforming metrics derived from raw EPID images. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed model-based algorithm enables accurate conversion of EPID images into water-equivalent dose distributions, facilitating accurate determination of beam flatness and symmetry. This application addresses some limitations of the previously proposed EPID-based linac QA techniques, which are limited to nonwater-equivalent constancy checks, and supports the use of EPIDs as robust dosimetry tools for linac radiation beam parameter verification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207