Region of interest selection and volume averaging for Gamma Knife radiochromic film dosimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. Accurate determination of relative output factors (ROFs) is paramount in stereotactic radiosurgery dosimetry, particularly for small fields employed in Leksell Gamma Knife (LGK) systems. Existing guidelines for LGK film-based dosimetry lack specificity regarding the selection of a region of interest (ROI) for ROF measurements. Approach. This investigation assessed the dosimetric performance of Gafchromic TM EBT4 film, focusing on establishing a quantitative metric for the unambiguous selection of a small ROI, defined relative to the beam’s full width at half maximum (FWHM), for LGK ROF measurements. Film irradiations were performed on an LGK ICON unit using 16-, 8-, and 4 mm collimators. Calibration curves were generated by irradiating 15 films with 16 mm beams in 15 s increments, with films subsequently scanned in both portrait and landscape orientations at various resolutions. Dosimetric accuracy was assessed using the net optical density transfer function along with corresponding uncertainty propagation. The influence of detector size on ROF determination was calculated using ROIs with diameters systematically varied to include 1/10, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 2/5, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4 of the beam’s FWHM. Main results. ROF measurements demonstrated high sensitivity to ROI size. A metric employing a ¼ FWHM ROI yielded ROFs values within 1% of the established Leksell GammaPlan (LGP) reference data, effectively minimizing film volume-averaging effects. Systematic dose errors, up to ±20% on average, were observed due to orientation mismatches between calibration and measurement scans. Furthermore, across all evaluated scan resolutions both FWHM and penumbra measurements consistently conformed to LGP specifications, specifically within ±0.5 mm and ±1 mm, respectively. Significance. The ¼ FWHM ROI provides a clinically practical method for LGK ROF determination, addressing the absence of a clear ROI definition in TG-178 report. This metric achieves a suitable balance for film-based measurements, ensuring a sufficient number of ROI pixels for statistical significance while minimizing volume-averaging effects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".