MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1994027449 · doi:10.1118/1.3476160

Poster — Thur Eve — 55: GRRCC‐Monte Carlo Treatment Planning Research Environment (MCTPRE)

2010· article· en· W1994027449 on OpenAlexaff
EK Osei, Kyle Willick, Daniel Puzzuoli, C Wernik, L Zhan, Rebecca Barnett

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooGrand River Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodRadiation treatment planningComputer scienceImaging phantomDICOMMedical physicsDosimetrySimulationNuclear medicineComputational scienceRadiation therapyPhysicsMedicineArtificial intelligenceMathematicsRadiologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implementation of Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithms in clinical radiotherapy treatment planning systems has been anticipated for many years however, its introduction into routine clinical practice has been delayed by the extent of calculation time required. With the advent of faster computers, Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms will become a standard calculation algorithm in clinical treatment planning systems. The purpose of this work was to develop a Monte Carlo based radiotherapy treatment planning research environment (MCTPRE) that uses patient‐specific computed tomography (CT) dataset. We have developed a windows based graphical user interface (GUI) that makes it very easy to import patient specific plans from a treatment planning system in either DICOM or RTOG format to a MC treatment planning research environment and can also be used to simulate simple patient specific treatment plans. The MCTPRE uses the BEAMnrcMP Monte Carlo code, which is based on the underlying ESGnrcMP particle transport code to simulate the Varian Clinac 21EX accelerator treatment head for 6 and 15MV photons and 6–20 MeV electron beams. The DOSXYZnrc Monte Carlo code is use for patient specific phantom dose calculations. We compared dose distributions from calculations done with a TPS and with the Monte Carlo code. The GUI incorporating the Monte Carlo code is a very useful research tool for benchmarking treatment planning systems (TPS), testing technique development, and dose verification. Future development will include a direct interface to a TPS.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3230.136

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.323 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→