Characteristics of elliptical sources in BEAMnrc Monte Carlo system: Implementation and application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, several papers noticed that the electron focal spot of a linear accelerator (linac) could be elliptical which would cause dosimetric discrepancies between measurements and Monte Carlo simulations. To resolve the mismatch, two elliptical source models were developed in BEAMnrc code. The first was a parallel beam elliptical source with uniform distribution where the shape of the source was primarily considered. The other was a parallel beam elliptical source with Gaussian distribution whose source distribution follows the normal distribution. To validate the elliptical source models, uniform and Gaussian electron beams were impinged on a thin air target. Both models successfully reproduced the elliptical shapes and source distributions. Then, this study investigated the characteristics of the elliptical Gaussian source for a 6 MV photon beam in a Varian 21EX linac. The linac head model was implemented in the BEAMnrc/EGSnrc system and commissioned by comparing the lateral and depth dose profiles to the ion chamber measurements acquired from the annual quality assurance (QA). It was found that the circular Gaussian beam with 6 MeV/0.2 cm full width half maximum (FWHM) produces the best matches to the QA data. To explore the characteristics of the elliptical Gaussian source, this study employed an elliptical Gaussian electron source with 0.1 cm FWHM in the x axis and 0.2 cm FWHM in the y axis which was incident on the target of the linac head. Two circular Gaussian beams with 0.1 and 0.2 cm FWHM were employed to compare the differences between circular and elliptical sources. For all the sources, planar and energy fluences were acquired and analyzed. This study also compared the lateral and depth dose profiles in a water phantom by using a DOSXYZnrc user code. In results, a constricted shoulder effect was observed in both planar and energy fluence plots when the FWHM value was increased and the field size is larger than 30 x 30 cm2. The same effect was also noticed in the lateral dose profiles, while the depth dose profile did not vary much.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".