SU‐E‐T‐203: Comparison of a Commercial MRI‐Linear Accelerator Based Monte Carlo Dose Calculation Algorithm and Geant4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: An MRI‐linear accelerator is currently being developed by the vendor Elekta™. The treatment planning system that will be used to model dose for this unit uses a Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm, GPUMCD, that allows for the application of a magnetic field. We tested this radiation transport code against an independent Monte‐Carlo toolkit Geant4 (v.4.10.01) both with and without the magnetic field applied. Methods: The setup comprised a 6 MeV mono‐energetic photon beam emerging from a point source impinging on a homogeneous water phantom at 100 cm SSD. The comparisons were drawn from the percentage depth doses (PDD) for three different field sizes (1.5 × 1.5 cm2, 5 × 5 cm2, 10 × 10 cm2) and dose profiles at various depths. A 1.5 T magnetic field was applied perpendicular to the direction of the beam. The transport thresholds were kept the same for both codes. Results: All of the normalized PDDs and profiles agreed within ± 1 %. In the presence of the magnetic field, PDDs rise more quickly reducing the depth of maximum dose. Near the beam exit point in the phantom a hot spot is created due to the electron return effect. This effect is more pronounced for the larger field sizes. Profiles selected parallel to the external field show no effect, however, the ones selected perpendicular to the direction of the applied magnetic field are shifted towards the direction of the Lorentz force applied by the magnetic field on the secondary electrons. It is observed that these profiles are not symmetric which indicates a lateral build up of the dose. Conclusion: There is a good general agreement between the PDDs/profiles calculated by both algorithms thus far. We are proceeding towards clinically relevant comparisons in a heterogeneous phantom for polyenergetic beams. Funding for this work has been provided by Elekta.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".