MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971823592 · doi:10.1118/1.4835475

A Fano cavity test for Monte Carlo proton transport algorithms

2013· article· en· W1971823592 on OpenAlexaff
Edmond Sterpin, J Sorriaux, Kevin Souris, S. Vynckier, Hugo Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodFano planeProtonProton therapyPhysicsDosimetryFluenceRadiation transportComputational physicsNuclear physicsMathematicsGeometryNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: In the scope of reference dosimetry of radiotherapy beams, Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are widely used to compute ionization chamber dose response accurately. Uncertainties related to the transport algorithm can be verified performing self-consistency tests, i.e., the so-called "Fano cavity test." The Fano cavity test is based on the Fano theorem, which states that under charged particle equilibrium conditions, the charged particle fluence is independent of the mass density of the media as long as the cross-sections are uniform. Such tests have not been performed yet for MC codes simulating proton transport. The objectives of this study are to design a new Fano cavity test for proton MC and to implement the methodology in two MC codes: Geant4 and PENELOPE extended to protons (PENH). METHODS: The new Fano test is designed to evaluate the accuracy of proton transport. Virtual particles with an energy of E0 and a mass macroscopic cross section of Σρ are transported, having the ability to generate protons with kinetic energy E0 and to be restored after each interaction, thus providing proton equilibrium. To perform the test, the authors use a simplified simulation model and rigorously demonstrate that the computed cavity dose per incident fluence must equal ΣE0ρ, as expected in classic Fano tests. The implementation of the test is performed in Geant4 and PENH. The geometry used for testing is a 10 × 10 cm(2) parallel virtual field and a cavity (2 × 2 × 0.2 cm(3) size) in a water phantom with dimensions large enough to ensure proton equilibrium. RESULTS: For conservative user-defined simulation parameters (leading to small step sizes), both Geant4 and PENH pass the Fano cavity test within 0.1%. However, differences of 0.6% and 0.7% were observed for PENH and Geant4, respectively, using larger step sizes. For PENH, the difference is attributed to the random-hinge method that introduces an artificial energy straggling if step size is not small enough. CONCLUSIONS: Using conservative user-defined simulation parameters, both PENH and Geant4 pass the Fano cavity test for proton transport. Our methodology is applicable to any kind of charged particle, provided that the considered MC code is able to track the charged particle considered.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207