MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032163719 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/57/10/3223

Evaluation of dose-volume metrics for microbeam radiation therapy dose distributions in head phantoms of various sizes using Monte Carlo simulations

2012· article· en· W2032163719 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle Anderson, Albert Siegbahn, B. G. Fallone, Raphaël Serduc, Brad Warkentin

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomMonte Carlo methodNuclear medicineCollimated lightMicrobeamMaterials scienceDosimetryHead (geology)PhysicsBiomedical engineeringOpticsMathematicsMedicineStatisticsLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work evaluates four dose-volume metrics applied to microbeam radiation therapy (MRT) using simulated dosimetric data as input. We seek to improve upon the most frequently used MRT metric, the peak-to-valley dose ratio (PVDR), by analyzing MRT dose distributions from a more volumetric perspective. Monte Carlo simulations were used to calculate dose distributions in three cubic head phantoms: a 2 cm mouse head, an 8 cm cat head and a 16 cm dog head. The dose distribution was calculated for a 4 × 4 mm² microbeam array in each phantom, as well as a 16 × 16 mm² array in the 8 cm cat head, and a 32 × 32 mm² array in the 16 cm dog head. Microbeam widths of 25, 50 and 75 µm and center-to-center spacings of 100, 200 and 400 µm were considered. The metrics calculated for each simulation were the conventional PVDR, the peak-to-mean valley dose ratio (PMVDR), the mean dose and the percentage volume below a threshold dose. The PVDR ranged between 3 and 230 for the 2 cm mouse phantom, and between 2 and 186 for the 16 cm dog phantom depending on geometry. The corresponding ranges for the PMVDR were much smaller, being 2-49 (mouse) and 2-46 (dog), and showed a slightly weaker dependence on phantom size and array size. The ratio of the PMVDR to the PVDR varied from 0.21 to 0.79 for the different collimation configurations, indicating a difference between the geometric dependence on outcome that would be predicted by these two metrics. For unidirectional irradiation, the mean lesion dose was 102%, 79% and 42% of the mean skin dose for the 2 cm mouse, 8 cm cat and 16 cm dog head phantoms, respectively. However, the mean lesion dose recovered to 83% of the mean skin dose in the 16 cm dog phantom in intersecting cross-firing regions. The percentage volume below a 10% dose threshold was highly dependent on geometry, with ranges for the different collimation configurations of 2-87% and 33-96% for the 2 cm mouse and 16 cm dog heads, respectively. The results of this study illustrate that different dose-volume metrics exhibit different functional dependences on MRT geometry parameters, and suggest that reliance on the PVDR as a predictor of therapeutic outcome may be insufficient.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207