MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1965283084 · doi:10.1118/1.4740153

Poster — Thur Eve — 45: Commissioning of the Varian ECLIPSE eMC algorithm for clinical electron treatment planning

2012· article· en· W1965283084 on OpenAlexaff
Monica Serban, R. Ruo, Arman Sarfehnia, William Parker, Michael D. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodElectronIonization chamberPhysicsDosimetryThermoluminescent dosimeterCathode rayNuclear medicineLinear particle acceleratorRadiation treatment planningComputational physicsIonizationAtomic physicsBeam (structure)Nuclear physicsRadiationOpticsMathematicsRadiation therapyDosimeterMedicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fast electron Monte Carlo systems have been developed commercially, and implemented for clinical practice in radiation therapy clinics. In this work the Varian eMC (electron Monte Carlo) algorithm was commissioned for clinical electron beams of energies between 6 MeV and 20 MeV. Beam outputs, PDDs and profiles were measured for 29 regular and irregular cutouts using the IC‐10 (Wellhöfer) ionization chamber. Detailed percentage depth dose comparisons showed that the agreement between measurement and eMC for different characteristic points on the PDD are generally less than 1 mm and always less than 2 mm, with the eMC calculated values being lower than the measured values. Of the 145 measured output factors, 19 cases fail a ±2% agreement but only 8 cases fail a ±3% agreement between calculation and measurement. Comparison of central axis dose distributions for two electron energies (9, and 20 MeV) for a 10 × 10 cm2 field, centrally shielded with Pb of width 0 cm (open), 1, 2 and 3 cm, shows agreement to within 3% except near the surface. Comparison of central axis dose distributions for 9 MeV in heterogeneous phantoms including bone and lung inserts showed agreement of 1 mm and 3 mm respectively with measured TLD data. The overall agreement between measurement and eMC calculation has enabled us to begin implementing this calculation model for clinical use.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→