Evaluation of a commercial MRI Linac based Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm with <scp>geant</scp> 4
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: This paper provides a comparison between a fast, commercial, in-patient Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm (GPUMCD) and geant4. It also evaluates the dosimetric impact of the application of an external 1.5 T magnetic field. METHODS: A stand-alone version of the Elekta™ GPUMCD algorithm, to be used within the Monaco treatment planning system to model dose for the Elekta™ magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Linac, was compared against GEANT4 (v10.1). This was done in the presence or absence of a 1.5 T static magnetic field directed orthogonally to the radiation beam axis. Phantoms with material compositions of water, ICRU lung, ICRU compact-bone, and titanium were used for this purpose. Beams with 2 MeV monoenergetic photons as well as a 7 MV histogrammed spectrum representing the MRI Linac spectrum were emitted from a point source using a nominal source-to-surface distance of 142.5 cm. Field sizes ranged from 1.5 × 1.5 to 10 × 10 cm(2). Dose scoring was performed using a 3D grid comprising 1 mm(3) voxels. The production thresholds were equivalent for both codes. Results were analyzed based upon a voxel by voxel dose difference between the two codes and also using a volumetric gamma analysis. RESULTS: Comparisons were drawn from central axis depth doses, cross beam profiles, and isodose contours. Both in the presence and absence of a 1.5 T static magnetic field the relative differences in doses scored along the beam central axis were less than 1% for the homogeneous water phantom and all results matched within a maximum of ±2% for heterogeneous phantoms. Volumetric gamma analysis indicated that more than 99% of the examined volume passed gamma criteria of 2%-2 mm (dose difference and distance to agreement, respectively). These criteria were chosen because the minimum primary statistical uncertainty in dose scoring voxels was 0.5%. The presence of the magnetic field affects the dose at the interface depending upon the density of the material on either sides of the interface. This effect varies with the field size. For example, at the water-lung interface a 33.94% increase in dose was observed (relative to the Dmax), by both GPUMCD and GEANT4 for the field size of 2 × 2 cm(2) (compared to no B-field case), which increased to 47.83% for the field size of 5 × 5 cm(2) in the presence of the magnetic field. Similarly, at the lung-water interface, the dose decreased by 19.21% (relative to Dmax) for a field size of 2 × 2 cm(2) and by 30.01% for 5 × 5 cm(2) field size. For more complex combinations of materials the dose deposition also becomes more complex. CONCLUSIONS: The GPUMCD algorithm showed good agreement against GEANT4 both in the presence and absence of a 1.5 T external magnetic field. The application of 1.5 T magnetic field significantly alters the dose at the interfaces by either increasing or decreasing the dose depending upon the density of the material on either side of the interfaces.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».