MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1752385438 · doi:10.1118/1.4929978

Monte Carlo modeling of ultrasound probes for image guided radiotherapy

2015· article· en· W1752385438 on OpenAlexaff
Magdalena Bazalova‐Carter, J Schlosser, Josephine Chen, Dimitre Hristov

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsImaging phantomMonte Carlo methodAttenuationCalibrationTransducerIonization chamberOpticsBeam (structure)Materials sciencePhysicsUltrasoundDosimetryNuclear medicineIonizationAcousticsMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To build Monte Carlo (MC) models of two ultrasound (US) probes and to quantify the effect of beam attenuation due to the US probes for radiation therapy delivered under real-time US image guidance. METHODS: MC models of two Philips US probes, an X6-1 matrix-array transducer and a C5-2 curved-array transducer, were built based on their megavoltage (MV) CT images acquired in a Tomotherapy machine with a 3.5 MV beam in the EGSnrc, BEAMnrc, and DOSXYZnrc codes. Mass densities in the probes were assigned based on an electron density calibration phantom consisting of cylinders with mass densities between 0.2 and 8.0 g/cm(3). Beam attenuation due to the US probes in horizontal (for both probes) and vertical (for the X6-1 probe) orientation was measured in a solid water phantom for 6 and 15 MV (15 × 15) cm(2) beams with a 2D ionization chamber array and radiographic films at 5 cm depth. The MC models of the US probes were validated by comparison of the measured dose distributions and dose distributions predicted by MC. Attenuation of depth dose in the (15 × 15) cm(2) beams and small circular beams due to the presence of the probes was assessed by means of MC simulations. RESULTS: The 3.5 MV CT number to mass density calibration curve was found to be linear with R(2) > 0.99. The maximum mass densities in the X6-1 and C5-2 probes were found to be 4.8 and 5.2 g/cm(3), respectively. Dose profile differences between MC simulations and measurements of less than 3% for US probes in horizontal orientation were found, with the exception of the penumbra region. The largest 6% dose difference was observed in dose profiles of the X6-1 probe placed in vertical orientation, which was attributed to inadequate modeling of the probe cable. Gamma analysis of the simulated and measured doses showed that over 96% of measurement points passed the 3%/3 mm criteria for both probes placed in horizontal orientation and for the X6-1 probe in vertical orientation. The X6-1 probe in vertical orientation caused the highest attenuation of the 6 and 15 MV beams, which at 10 cm depth accounted for 33% and 43% decrease compared to the respective (15 × 15) cm(2) open fields. The C5-2 probe in horizontal orientation, on the other hand, caused a dose increase of 10% and 53% for the 6 and 15 MV beams, respectively, in the buildup region at 0.5 cm depth. For the X6-1 probe in vertical orientation, the dose at 5 cm depth for the 3-cm diameter 6 MV and 5-cm diameter 15 MV beams was attenuated compared to the corresponding open fields to a greater degree by 65% and 43%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MC models of two US probes used for real-time image guidance during radiotherapy have been built. Due to the high beam attenuation of the US probes, the authors generally recommend avoiding delivery of treatment beams that intersect the probe. However, the presented MC models can be effectively integrated into US-guided radiotherapy treatment planning in cases for which beam avoidance is not practical due to anatomy geometry.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207