MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996310896 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/50/5/025

Clinical use of a commercial Monte Carlo treatment planning system for electron beams

2005· article· en· W1996310896 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna Cygler, C. Lochrin, George M. Daskalov, Michelle E. Howard, Robert Zohr, B. Esche, Libni Eapen, L. Grimard, J. Caudrelier

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsOttawa Regional Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodRadiation treatment planningComputer scienceMedical physicsSoftwareElectronNuclear medicinePhysicsSimulationMedicineRadiologyMathematicsRadiation therapyNuclear physicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2002 we fully implemented clinically a commercial Monte Carlo based treatment planning system for electron beams. The software, developed by MDS Nordion (presently Nucletron), is based on Kawrakow's VMC++ algorithm. The Monte Carlo module is integrated with our Theraplan Plustrade mark treatment planning system. An extensive commissioning process preceded clinical implementation of this software. Using a single virtual 'machine' for each electron beam energy, we can now calculate very accurately the dose distributions and the number of MU for any arbitrary field shape and SSD. This new treatment planning capability has significantly impacted our clinical practice. Since we are more confident of the actual dose delivered to a patient, we now calculate accurate three-dimensional (3D) dose distributions for a greater variety of techniques and anatomical sites than we have in the past. We use the Monte Carlo module to calculate dose for head and neck, breast, chest wall and abdominal treatments with electron beams applied either solo or in conjunction with photons. In some cases patient treatment decisions have been changed, as compared to how such patients would have been treated in the past. In this paper, we present the planning procedure and some clinical examples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations45
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207