Implementation of random set-up errors in Monte Carlo calculated dynamic IMRT treatment plans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fluence-convolution method for incorporating random set-up errors (RSE) into the Monte Carlo treatment planning dose calculations was previously proposed by Beckham et al, and it was validated for open field radiotherapy treatments. This study confirms the applicability of the fluence-convolution method for dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) dose calculations and evaluates the impact of set-up uncertainties on a clinical IMRT dose distribution. BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc codes were used for Monte Carlo calculations. A sliding window IMRT delivery was simulated using a dynamic multi-leaf collimator (DMLC) transport model developed by Keall et al. The dose distributions were benchmarked for dynamic IMRT fields using extended dose range (EDR) film, accumulating the dose from 16 subsequent fractions shifted randomly. Agreement of calculated and measured relative dose values was well within statistical uncertainty. A clinical seven field sliding window IMRT head and neck treatment was then simulated and the effects of random set-up errors (standard deviation of 2 mm) were evaluated. The dose-volume histograms calculated in the PTV with and without corrections for RSE showed only small differences indicating a reduction of the volume of high dose region due to set-up errors. As well, it showed that adequate coverage of the PTV was maintained when RSE was incorporated. Slice-by-slice comparison of the dose distributions revealed differences of up to 5.6%. The incorporation of set-up errors altered the position of the hot spot in the plan. This work demonstrated validity of implementation of the fluence-convolution method to dynamic IMRT Monte Carlo dose calculations. It also showed that accounting for the set-up errors could be essential for correct identification of the value and position of the hot spot.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".