MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991131346 · doi:10.1118/1.4815533

WE‐C‐108‐10: Model‐Based Dose Calculations for Eye Plaque Brachytherapy

2013· article· en· W1991131346 on OpenAlexaff
Marielle Lesperance, Martin P. Martinov, M. Inglis‐Whalen, Rowan M. Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrachytherapyImaging phantomDosimetryAttenuationNuclear medicinePhotonHuman eyeAbsorption (acoustics)Photon energyOpticsMaterials scienceAbsorbed doseMonte Carlo methodPhysicsBiomedical engineeringMedicineMathematicsRadiation therapyRadiologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To develop a comprehensive understanding of dosimetry for ocular brachytherapy through model‐based dose calculations involving a full human eye model for various plaque models and three different photon‐emitting radionuclides (125I, 103Pd and 131Cs). Methods: A representative computational model of the human eye and surrounding tissues was developed based on ocular geometry and compositions from the literature. Mass energy absorption and attenuation coefficients for all media were calculated. Monte Carlo simulations using the EGSnrc user‐code BrachyDose were performed for a variety of photon‐emitting plaques covering the range of plaque models encountered in clinical practice, including the widely‐used COMS plaque. Maximum, minimum and average doses to ocular structures, as well as dose volume histograms (DVH) for the full eye model were compared to those for a homogeneous water phantom, both including and excluding (TG‐43) inter‐seed and eye plaque effects. Results: Mass energy absorption and attenuation coefficients for ocular media differ from those for water by up to 10% for photon energies in the 10–30 keV range. For the COMS plaque in the full eye model, average doses to important structures such as the tumour and lens differ from those for the plaque in water by roughly 8–10% and 13–14%, respectively, and from TG– 43 calculation by 2–17% and 29–34%, respectively. Maximum, minimum and average doses differ considerably from doses to points of interest (as they are currently reported); the lens has a larger average dose by 7–9% and optic nerve has a larger maximum dose by 16–22%, than at the center of the lens and the optic disk, respectively. Conclusion: Dose distributions for the full eye model simulations deviate significantly from TG‐43 and from simulations that include the plaque but assume the eye to be water equivalent, highlighting the need for accurate model‐based dose calculations in ocular brachytherapy. Funding support: NSERC, OGS

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.341
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207