MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018480592 · doi:10.2967/jnumed.110.077149

Fine-Resolution Voxel S Values for Constructing Absorbed Dose Distributions at Variable Voxel Size

2010· article· en· W2018480592 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arnaud Dieudonné, Robert F. Hobbs, Wesley E. Bolch, G. Sgouros, Isabelle Gardin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthOak Ridge National LaboratoryNational Cancer InstituteLigue Contre le Cancer
KeywordsVoxelMonte Carlo methodDosimetryNuclear medicineAbsorbed dosePhysicsPhotonComputational physicsMathematicsStatisticsComputer scienceOpticsMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: This article presents a revised voxel S values (VSVs) approach for dosimetry in targeted radiotherapy, allowing dose calculation for any voxel size and shape of a given SPECT or PET dataset. This approach represents an update to the methodology presented in MIRD pamphlet no. 17. METHODS: VSVs were generated in soft tissue with a fine spatial sampling using the Monte Carlo (MC) code MCNPX for particle emissions of 9 radionuclides: (18)F, (90)Y, (99m)Tc, (111)In, (123)I, (131)I, (177)Lu, (186)Re, and (201)Tl. A specific resampling algorithm was developed to compute VSVs for desired voxel dimensions. The dose calculation was performed by convolution via a fast Hartley transform. The fine VSVs were calculated for cubic voxels of 0.5 mm for electrons and 1.0 mm for photons. Validation studies were done for (90)Y and (131)I VSV sets by comparing the revised VSV approach to direct MC simulations. The first comparison included 20 spheres with different voxel sizes (3.8-7.7 mm) and radii (4-64 voxels) and the second comparison a hepatic tumor with cubic voxels of 3.8 mm. MC simulations were done with MCNPX for both. The third comparison was performed on 2 clinical patients with the 3D-RD (3-Dimensional Radiobiologic Dosimetry) software using the EGSnrc (Electron Gamma Shower National Research Council Canada)-based MC implementation, assuming a homogeneous tissue-density distribution. RESULTS: For the sphere model study, the mean relative difference in the average absorbed dose was 0.20% ± 0.41% for (90)Y and -0.36% ± 0.51% for (131)I (n = 20). For the hepatic tumor, the difference in the average absorbed dose to tumor was 0.33% for (90)Y and -0.61% for (131)I and the difference in average absorbed dose to the liver was 0.25% for (90)Y and -1.35% for (131)I. The comparison with the 3D-RD software showed an average voxel-to-voxel dose ratio between 0.991 and 0.996. The calculation time was below 10 s with the VSV approach and 50 and 15 h with 3D-RD for the 2 clinical patients. CONCLUSION: This new VSV approach enables the calculation of absorbed dose based on a SPECT or PET cumulated activity map, with good agreement with direct MC methods, in a faster and more clinically compatible manner.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
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

Citations83
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear MedicineSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207