MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2029363101 · doi:10.1118/1.4740213

Sci—Sat AM: Brachy — 06: Monte carlo DNA damage simulations of kV cbct radiation

2012· article· en· W2029363101 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Kirkby, E Ghasroddashti, Yannick Poirier, Mauro Tambasco, R.D. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodRelative biological effectivenessContext (archaeology)Nuclear medicinePhysicsDosimetryRadiation treatment planningRadiationEffective dose (radiation)Radiation therapyComputational physicsMedical physicsMedicineOpticsMathematicsRadiologyStatisticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When performed daily, cone beam CT (CBCT) images can accumulate radiation dose to non-negligible levels. Because kV x-rays have a larger relative biological effectiveness (RBE) than its MV x-rays, the accumulated absorbed dose needs to be multiplied by an appropriate RBE to better evaluate the impact of CBCT dose in a treatment planning context. We investigated this question using PENLEOPE simulations to look in detail at the electron energy spectra produced by kV x-rays and Co-60 γ-rays in biologically motivated geometries. The electron spectra were input into the published Monte Carlo Damage Simulation (MCDS) and used to estimate the average number of double strand breaks (DSBs) per Gy per cell. Our results suggest an approximately 10% increase in the RBE for DSB induction. For the majority of treatment planning scenarios where imaging dose is only a small fraction of the total delivered dose to target volumes and organs at risk, the increase in RBE is not critical to be factored in, however for it may play a significant role in predicting the induction of secondary cancers.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→