Monte Carlo calculations of positron emitter yields in proton radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positron emission tomography (PET) is a promising tool for monitoring the three-dimensional dose distribution in charged particle radiotherapy. PET imaging during or shortly after proton treatment is based on the detection of annihilation photons following the ß(+)-decay of radionuclides resulting from nuclear reactions in the irradiated tissue. Therapy monitoring is achieved by comparing the measured spatial distribution of irradiation-induced ß(+)-activity with the predicted distribution based on the treatment plan. The accuracy of the calculated distribution depends on the correctness of the computational models, implemented in the employed Monte Carlo (MC) codes that describe the interactions of the charged particle beam with matter and the production of radionuclides and secondary particles. However, no well-established theoretical models exist for predicting the nuclear interactions and so phenomenological models are typically used based on parameters derived from experimental data. Unfortunately, the experimental data presently available are insufficient to validate such phenomenological hadronic interaction models. Hence, a comparison among the models used by the different MC packages is desirable. In this work, starting from a common geometry, we compare the performances of MCNPX, GATE and PHITS MC codes in predicting the amount and spatial distribution of proton-induced activity, at therapeutic energies, to the already experimentally validated PET modelling based on the FLUKA MC code. In particular, we show how the amount of ß(+)-emitters produced in tissue-like media depends on the physics model and cross-sectional data used to describe the proton nuclear interactions, thus calling for future experimental campaigns aiming at supporting improvements of MC modelling for clinical application of PET monitoring.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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".