MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974868216 · doi:10.1118/1.3538922

Position‐probability‐sampled Monte Carlo calculation of VMAT, 3DCRT, step‐shoot IMRT, and helical tomotherapy dose distributions using BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc

2011· article· en· W1974868216 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Bélec, Nicolas Ploquin, Daniel J. La Russa, Brenda Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityOttawa Hospital
FundersElekta
KeywordsTomotherapyMonte Carlo methodDosimetryRadiation treatment planningPosition (finance)Linear particle acceleratorNuclear medicineProton therapyComputer sciencePhysicsMathematicsRadiation therapyOpticsBeam (structure)MedicineStatisticsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The commercial release of volumetric modulated arc therapy techniques using a conventional linear accelerator and the growing number of helical tomotherapy users have triggered renewed interest in dose verification methods, and also in tools for exploring the impact of machine tolerance and patient motion on dose distributions without the need to approximate time-varying parameters such as gantry position, MLC leaf motion, or patient motion. To this end we have developed a Monte Carlo-based calculation method capable of simulating a wide variety of treatment techniques without the need to resort to discretization approximations. METHODS: The ability to perform complete position-probability-sampled Monte Carlo dose calculations was implemented in the BEAMnrc/DOSXZYnrc user codes of EGSnrc. The method includes full accelerator head simulations of our tomotherapy and Elekta linacs, and a realistic representation of continous motion via the sampling of a time variable. The functionality of this algorithm was tested via comparisons with both measurements and treatment planning dose distributions for four types of treatment techniques: 3D conformal, step-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy, helical tomotherapy, and volumetric modulated are therapy. RESULTS: For static fields, the absolute dose agreement between the EGSnrc Monte Carlo calculations and measurements is within 2%/1 mm. Absolute dose agreement between Monte Carlo calculations and treatment planning system for the four different treatment techniques is within 3%/3 mm. Discrepancies with the tomotherapy TPS on the order of 10%/5 mm were observed for the extreme example of a small target located 15 cm off-axis and planned with a low modulation factor. The increase in simulation time associated with using position-probability sampling, as opposed to the discretization approach, was less than 2% in most cases. CONCLUSIONS: A single Monte Carlo simulation method can be used to calculate patient dose distribution for various types of treatment techniques delivered with either tomotherapy or a conventional linac. The method simplifies the simulation process, improves dose calculation accuracy, and involves an acceptably small change in computation time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207