MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046189791 · doi:10.1118/1.3549760

The difference of scoring dose to water or tissues in Monte Carlo dose calculations for low energy brachytherapy photon sources

2011· article· en· W2046189791 on OpenAlexafffund
Guillaume Landry, Brigitte Reniers, Jean‐Philippe Pignol, Luc Beaulieu, Frank Verhaegen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMontreal General HospitalUniversité LavalHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoMcGill UniversityHôtel-Dieu de QuébecSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersCanadian Cancer Society
KeywordsBrachytherapyMonte Carlo methodDosimetryPhotonNuclear medicinePhoton energyProstate cancerMaterials scienceMedicineBiomedical engineeringPhysicsOpticsRadiation therapyRadiologyMathematicsCancerStatisticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The goal of this work is to compare D(m,m) (radiation transported in medium; dose scored in medium) and D(w,m) (radiation transported in medium; dose scored in water) obtained from Monte Carlo (MC) simulations for a subset of human tissues of interest in low energy photon brachytherapy. Using low dose rate seeds and an electronic brachytherapy source (EBS), the authors quantify the large cavity theory conversion factors required. The authors also assess whether ap plying large cavity theory utilizing the sources' initial photon spectra and average photon energy induces errors related to spatial spectral variations. First, ideal spherical geometries were investigated, followed by clinical brachytherapy LDR seed implants for breast and prostate cancer patients. METHODS: Two types of dose calculations are performed with the GEANT4 MC code. (1) For several human tissues, dose profiles are obtained in spherical geometries centered on four types of low energy brachytherapy sources: 125I, 103Pd, and 131Cs seeds, as well as an EBS operating at 50 kV. Ratios of D(w,m) over D(m,m) are evaluated in the 0-6 cm range. In addition to mean tissue composition, compositions corresponding to one standard deviation from the mean are also studied. (2) Four clinical breast (using 103Pd) and prostate (using 125I) brachytherapy seed implants are considered. MC dose calculations are performed based on postimplant CT scans using prostate and breast tissue compositions. PTV D90 values are compared for D(w,m) and D(m,m). RESULTS: (1) Differences (D(w,m)/D(m,m)-1) of -3% to 70% are observed for the investigated tissues. For a given tissue, D(w,m)/D(m,m) is similar for all sources within 4% and does not vary more than 2% with distance due to very moderate spectral shifts. Variations of tissue composition about the assumed mean composition influence the conversion factors up to 38%. (2) The ratio of D90(w,m) over D90(m,m) for clinical implants matches D(w,m)/D(m,m) at 1 cm from the single point sources, CONCLUSIONS: Given the small variation with distance, using conversion factors based on the emitted photon spectrum (or its mean energy) of a given source introduces minimal error. The large differences observed between scoring schemes underline the need for guidelines on choice of media for dose reporting. Providing such guidelines is beyond the scope of this work.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations48
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207