ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2020
Multivariate log file analysis for multi-leaf collimator failure prediction in radiotherapy delivery.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using machine learning to predict gamma passing rate in volumetric-modulated arc therapy treatment plans.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Trial
- Performance evaluation of the binary MLC system on a novel biology-guided radiotherapy machine using beamlet sequence log data from daily clinical treatments.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Comparison of Rapid Arc and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in a True Beam Linear Accelerator for 6 MV: Application of AAPM TG-119 tests in treatment planning and quality assurance.Precision radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Failure modes and downtime of radiotherapy LINACs and multileaf collimators in Indonesia.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Development of a Monte Carlo based robustness calculation and evaluation tool.Medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeMotor failure in multi-leaf collimators (MLC) is a common reason for unscheduled accelerator maintenance, disrupting the workflow of a radiotherapy treatment centre. Predicting MLC replacement needs ahead of time would allow for proactive maintenance scheduling, reducing the impact MLC replacement has on treatment workflow. We propose a multivariate approach to analysis of trajectory log data, which can be used to predict upcoming MLC replacement needs. MATERIALS AND
methodsTrajectory log files from two accelerators, spanning six and seven months respectively, have been collected and analysed. The average error in each of the parameters for each log file was calculated and used for further analysis. A performance index (PI) was generated by applying moving window principal component analysis to the prepared data. Drops in the PI were thought to indicate an upcoming MLC replacement requirement; therefore, PI was tracked with exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) control charts complete with a lower control limit.
resultsThe best compromise of fault detection and minimising false alarm rate was achieved using a weighting parameter (λ) of 0.05 and a control limit based on three standard deviations and an 80 data point window. The approach identified eight out of thirteen logged MLC replacements, one to three working days in advance whilst, on average, raising a false alarm, on average, 1.1 times a month.
conclusionsThis approach to analysing trajectory log data has been shown to enable prediction of certain upcoming MLC failures, albeit at a cost of false alarms.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.