MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W987716612 · doi:10.1118/1.4924425

SU‐E‐T‐64: A Programmable Moving Insert for the ArcCHECK Phantom for Dose Verification of Respiratory‐Gated VMAT

2015· article· en· W987716612 on OpenAlexaff
Stewart Gaede, Holly Young, Mark Mulligan, K Jordan

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomDosimeterDosimetryInsert (composites)Biomedical engineeringQuality assuranceNuclear medicineMaterials sciencePhysicsComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To present a customized programmable moving insert for the ArcCHECK™ phantom that can, in a single delivery, check both entrance dosimetry, while simultaneously verifying the delivery of respiratory‐gated VMAT. Methods: The cylindrical motion phantom uses a computer‐controlled stepping motor to move an insert inside a stationery sleeve. Insert motion is programmable and can include rotational motion in addition to linear motion along the axis of the cylinder. The sleeve fits securely in the bore of the ArcCHECK™. Interchangeable inserts, including an A1SL chamber, optically‐stimulated luminescence dosimeters, radiochromic film, or 3D gels, allow this combination to be used for commissioning, routine quality assurance, and patient‐specific dosimetric verification of respiratory‐gated VMAT. Before clinical implementation, the effect of a moving insert on the ArcCHECK™ measurements was considered. First, the measured dose to the ArcCHECK™ containing multiple inserts in the static position was compared to the calculated dose during multiple VMAT treatment deliveries. Then, dose was measured under both sinusoidal and real‐patient motion conditions to determine any effect of the moving inserts on the ArcCHECK™ measurements. Finally, dose was measured during gated VMAT delivery to the same inserts under the same motion conditions to examine any effect of various beam “on‐and‐off” and dose rate ramp “up‐and‐down”. Multiple comparisons between measured and calculated dose to different inserts were also considered. Results: The pass rate for the static delivery exceeded 98% for all measurements (3%/3mm), suggesting a valid setup for entrance dosimetry. The pass rate was not altered for any measurement delivered under motion conditions. A similar Result was observed under gated VMAT conditions, including agreement of measured and calculated dose to the various inserts. Conclusion: Incorporating a programmable moving insert within the ArcCHECK™ phantom provides an efficient verification of respiratory‐gated VMAT delivery that is useful during commissioning, routine quality assurance, and patient‐specific dose verification. Prototype phantom development and testing was performed in collaboration with Modus Medical Devices Inc. (London, ON). No financial support was granted.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→