Dosimetric evaluation of the clinical implementation of the first commercial IMRT Monte Carlo treatment planning system at 6 MV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work we dosimetrically evaluated the clinical implementation of a commercial Monte Carlo treatment planning software (PEREGRINE, North American Scientific, Cranberry Township, PA) intended for quality assurance (QA) of intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment plans. Dose profiles calculated in homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms using this system were compared to both measurements and simulations using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo code for the 6 MV beam of a Varian CL21EX linear accelerator. For simple jaw-defined fields, calculations agree within 2% of the dose at d(max) with measurements in homogeneous phantoms with the exception of the buildup region where the calculations overestimate the dose by up to 8%. In heterogeneous lung and bone phantoms the agreement is within 3%, on average, up to 5% for a 1 x 1 cm2 field. We tested two consecutive implementations of the MLC model. After matching the calculated and measured MLC leakage, simulations of static and dynamic MLC-defined fields using the most recent MLC model agreed to within 2% with measurements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".