MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2029665116 · doi:10.1118/1.3611462

SU‐C‐BRA‐02: Modular Patient‐Specific Compensation for Co‐60 TBI Treatments Based on Monte Carlo Design

2011· article· en· W2029665116 on OpenAlexaff
Monica Serban, Jan Seuntjens, E Roussin, Jean‐Rene Tremblay, W Wierzbicki

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodSupine positionMonitor unitNuclear medicineCollimatorBeam (structure)Multileaf collimatorDosimetryAttenuationFlatteningPhysicsLinear particle acceleratorMedicineMathematicsOpticsSurgeryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and measurements, to develop a new treatment technique for the delivery of TBI at extended SSD using a custom modified Co‐60 unit equipped with flattening filter and modular, patient‐specific compensators. Methods: An existing Eldorado‐78 Co‐60 teletherapy unit was stripped from its original collimator and equipped with beam‐defining cerrobend blocks for extended SSD TBI treatments. An acrylic flattening filter was numerically designed based on detailed mapping of the dose distribution of the large open field at 10 cm depth in water using a primary radiation attenuation calculation. An EGSnrc MC model of the resulting unit was developed and experimentally validated. The model was used to calculate MC dose in whole‐body supine and prone CT images of a patient. The total dose, calculated by summing prone and supine dose after deformable registration (VelocityAI™) was used to design modular, patient‐specific compensators, based on the premise that dose in the patient mid‐plane ought to be uniform. Results: The designed flattening filter flattens the beam to within ±2% over a 200 cm × 70 cm area at 10 cm depth in water. Experimental validation of the calculated dose profiles in the open and flattened beams shows agreement of better than 2% and 1%, respectively. Patient MC dose calculations in the flattened, uncompensated beam showed dose deviations from prescription dose most notably in lung, neck, arm and leg areas ranging from −5% to +25%. Patient‐specific compensation reduced non‐homogeneities in the patient to within −5% to +10%. The clinical implementation involves a modular, Lego®‐style realization of the compensator using orthogonal parallelepiped blocks on a plate that slides in the treatment head tray. Conclusions: This work demonstrates that a Co‐60 TBI setup combined with patient‐specific compensators numerically designed using MC calculations is clinically feasible and highly improves the quality of the treatment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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