MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Monte Carlo dose calculations for phantoms with hip prostheses

2008· article· en· W1973601744 on OpenAlexafffund
Magdalena Bazalova‐Carter, Catherine Coolens, Fabio Cury, Peter J. Childs, Luc Beaulieu, Frank Verhaegen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de QuébecMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsImaging phantomProsthesisMonte Carlo methodVoxelContouringNuclear medicineMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringComputer scienceMedicineMathematicsComputer visionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computed tomography (CT) images of patients with hip prostheses are severely degraded by metal streaking artefacts. The low image quality makes organ contouring more difficult and can result in large dose calculation errors when Monte Carlo (MC) techniques are used. In this work, the extent of streaking artefacts produced by three common hip prosthesis materials (Ti-alloy, stainless steel, and Co-Cr-Mo alloy) was studied. The prostheses were tested in a hypothetical prostate treatment with five 18 MV photon beams. The dose distributions for unilateral and bilateral prosthesis phantoms were calculated with the EGSnrc/DOSXYZnrc MC code. This was done in three phantom geometries: in the exact geometry, in the original CT geometry, and in an artefact-corrected geometry. The artefact-corrected geometry was created using a modified filtered back-projection correction technique. It was found that unilateral prosthesis phantoms do not show large dose calculation errors, as long as the beams miss the artefact-affected volume. This is possible to achieve in the case of unilateral prosthesis phantoms (except for the Co-Cr-Mo prosthesis which gives a 3% error) but not in the case of bilateral prosthesis phantoms. The largest dose discrepancies were obtained for the bilateral Co-Cr-Mo hip prosthesis phantom, up to 11% in some voxels within the prostate. The artefact correction algorithm worked well for all phantoms and resulted in dose calculation errors below 2%. In conclusion, a MC treatment plan should include an artefact correction algorithm when treating patients with hip prostheses.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207