Dosimetric evaluation and verification of treatment planning systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accuracy of treatment planning system's (TPS) external photon beam dose calculations for complex fields involving the use of blocks, multi-leaf collimator (MLC), virtual wedges and asymmetric jaws are evaluated in this study. The treatment planning systems investigated were: (1) Helax-TMS (Version 4.1) which implements an energy fluence based model of the treatment head of a linac, and pencil beam algorithm for determination of the dose in the patient; and (2) CMS FOCUS (Version 2.5) which employs the Clarkson's algorithm and a scatter phantom ratio model to calculate the dose. Measured output factors (OF) and head scatter factors (HSF) for several square fields, fields formed by independent jaws, MLC formed fields and blocked fields were determined and compared with OFs and HSFs predicted by the TPSs. OR for virtual wedges, formed by independent jaws, were also measured and compared with those predicted by CMS and TMS. In addition, a method of independent verification of the monitor unit calculations of TMS was developed. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".