TH‐E‐BRE‐09: TrueBeam Monte Carlo Absolute Dose Calculations Using Monitor Chamber Backscatter Simulations and Linac‐Logged Target Current
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To simulate and measure radiation backscattered into the monitor chamber of a TrueBeam linac; establish a rigorous framework for absolute dose calculations for TrueBeam Monte Carlo (MC) simulations through a novel approach, taking into account the backscattered radiation and the actual machine output during beam delivery; improve agreement between measured and simulated relative output factors. Methods: The ‘monitor backscatter factor’ is an essential ingredient of a well‐established MC absolute dose formalism (the MC equivalent of the TG‐51 protocol). This quantity was determined for the 6 MV, 6X FFF, and 10X FFF beams by two independent Methods: (1) MC simulations in the monitor chamber of the TrueBeam linac; (2) linac‐generated beam record data for target current, logged for each beam delivery. Upper head MC simulations used a freelyavailable manufacturer‐provided interface to a cloud‐based platform, allowing use of the same head model as that used to generate the publicly‐available TrueBeam phase spaces, without revealing the upper head design. The MC absolute dose formalism was expanded to allow direct use of target current data. Results: The relation between backscatter, number of electrons incident on the target for one monitor unit, and MC absolute dose was analyzed for open fields, as well as a jaw‐tracking VMAT plan. The agreement between the two methods was better than 0.15%. It was demonstrated that the agreement between measured and simulated relative output factors improves across all field sizes when backscatter is taken into account. Conclusion: For the first time, simulated monitor chamber dose and measured target current for an actual TrueBeam linac were incorporated in the MC absolute dose formalism. In conjunction with the use of MC inputs generated from post‐delivery trajectory‐log files, the present method allows accurate MC dose calculations, without resorting to any of the simplifying assumptions previously made in the TrueBeam MC literature. This work has been partially funded by Varian Medical Systems.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".