MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996036343 · doi:10.1118/1.4903502

Latent uncertainties of the precalculated track Monte Carlo method

2015· article· en· W1996036343 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc‐André Renaud, David Roberge, Jan Seuntjens

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodComputer scienceAlgorithmBenchmark (surveying)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: While significant progress has been made in speeding up Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation methods, they remain too time-consuming for the purpose of inverse planning. To achieve clinically usable calculation speeds, a precalculated Monte Carlo (PMC) algorithm for proton and electron transport was developed to run on graphics processing units (GPUs). The algorithm utilizes pregenerated particle track data from conventional MC codes for different materials such as water, bone, and lung to produce dose distributions in voxelized phantoms. While PMC methods have been described in the past, an explicit quantification of the latent uncertainty arising from the limited number of unique tracks in the pregenerated track bank is missing from the paper. With a proper uncertainty analysis, an optimal number of tracks in the pregenerated track bank can be selected for a desired dose calculation uncertainty. METHODS: Particle tracks were pregenerated for electrons and protons using EGSnrc and geant4 and saved in a database. The PMC algorithm for track selection, rotation, and transport was implemented on the Compute Unified Device Architecture (cuda) 4.0 programming framework. PMC dose distributions were calculated in a variety of media and compared to benchmark dose distributions simulated from the corresponding general-purpose MC codes in the same conditions. A latent uncertainty metric was defined and analysis was performed by varying the pregenerated track bank size and the number of simulated primary particle histories and comparing dose values to a "ground truth" benchmark dose distribution calculated to 0.04% average uncertainty in voxels with dose greater than 20% of Dmax. Efficiency metrics were calculated against benchmark MC codes on a single CPU core with no variance reduction. RESULTS: Dose distributions generated using PMC and benchmark MC codes were compared and found to be within 2% of each other in voxels with dose values greater than 20% of the maximum dose. In proton calculations, a small (≤ 1 mm) distance-to-agreement error was observed at the Bragg peak. Latent uncertainty was characterized for electrons and found to follow a Poisson distribution with the number of unique tracks per energy. A track bank of 12 energies and 60000 unique tracks per pregenerated energy in water had a size of 2.4 GB and achieved a latent uncertainty of approximately 1% at an optimal efficiency gain over DOSXYZnrc. Larger track banks produced a lower latent uncertainty at the cost of increased memory consumption. Using an NVIDIA GTX 590, efficiency analysis showed a 807 × efficiency increase over DOSXYZnrc for 16 MeV electrons in water and 508 × for 16 MeV electrons in bone. CONCLUSIONS: The PMC method can calculate dose distributions for electrons and protons to a statistical uncertainty of 1% with a large efficiency gain over conventional MC codes. Before performing clinical dose calculations, models to calculate dose contributions from uncharged particles must be implemented. Following the successful implementation of these models, the PMC method will be evaluated as a candidate for inverse planning of modulated electron radiation therapy and scanned proton beams.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207