MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017159023 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/22/010

A GPU implementation of EGSnrc's Monte Carlo photon transport for imaging applications

2011· article· en· W2017159023 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonas Lippuner, Idris A. Elbakri

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCancerCare Manitoba Foundation
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodCUDAPhotonComputer scienceGraphicsRange (aeronautics)Graphics processing unitComputational sciencePhysicsComputational physicsParallel computingOpticsComputer graphics (images)StatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EGSnrc is a well-known Monte Carlo simulation package for coupled electron-photon transport that is widely used in medical physics application. This paper proposes a parallel implementation of the photon transport mechanism of EGSnrc for graphics processing units (GPUs) using NVIDIA's Compute Unified Device Architecture (CUDA). The implementation is specifically designed for imaging applications in the diagnostic energy range and does not model electrons. No approximations or simplifications of the original EGSnrc code were made other than using single floating-point precision instead of double precision and a different random number generator. To avoid performance penalties due to the random nature of the Monte Carlo method, the simulation was divided into smaller steps that could easily be performed in a parallel fashion suitable for GPUs. Speedups of 20 to 40 times for 64(3) to 256(3) voxels were observed while the accuracy of the simulation was preserved. A detailed analysis of the differences between the CUDA simulation and the original EGSnrc was conducted. The two simulations were found to produce equivalent results for scattered photons and an overall systematic deviation of less than 0.08% was observed for primary photons.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations33
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207