GPU-based Monte Carlo radiotherapy dose calculation using phase-space sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel phase-space source implementation has been designed for graphics processing unit (GPU)-based Monte Carlo dose calculation engines. Short of full simulation of the linac head, using a phase-space source is the most accurate method to model a clinical radiation beam in dose calculations. However, in GPU-based Monte Carlo dose calculations where the computation efficiency is very high, the time required to read and process a large phase-space file becomes comparable to the particle transport time. Moreover, due to the parallelized nature of GPU hardware, it is essential to simultaneously transport particles of the same type and similar energies but separated spatially to yield a high efficiency. We present three methods for phase-space implementation that have been integrated into the most recent version of the GPU-based Monte Carlo radiotherapy dose calculation package gDPM v3.0. The first method is to sequentially read particles from a patient-dependent phase-space and sort them on-the-fly based on particle type and energy. The second method supplements this with a simple secondary collimator model and fluence map implementation so that patient-independent phase-space sources can be used. Finally, as the third method (called the phase-space-let, or PSL, method) we introduce a novel source implementation utilizing pre-processed patient-independent phase-spaces that are sorted by particle type, energy and position. Position bins located outside a rectangular region of interest enclosing the treatment field are ignored, substantially decreasing simulation time with little effect on the final dose distribution. The three methods were validated in absolute dose against BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc and compared using gamma-index tests (2%/2 mm above the 10% isodose). It was found that the PSL method has the optimal balance between accuracy and efficiency and thus is used as the default method in gDPM v3.0. Using the PSL method, open fields of 4 × 4, 10 × 10 and 30 × 30 cm(2) in water resulted in gamma passing rates of 99.96%, 99.92% and 98.66%, respectively. Relative output factors agreed within 1%. An intensity modulated radiation therapy patient plan using the PSL method resulted in a passing rate of 97%, and was calculated in 50 s (per GPU) compared to 8.4 h (per CPU) for BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".