MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047888136 · doi:10.1118/1.2805254

Treatment planning for a small animal using Monte Carlo simulation

2007· article· en· W2047888136 on OpenAlexaff
James C. L. Chow, Michael K. K. Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodComputer scienceMedical physicsStatistical physicsPhysicsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of a small animal model for radiotherapy research requires a complete setup of customized imaging equipment, irradiators, and planning software that matches the sizes of the subjects. The purpose of this study is to develop and demonstrate the use of a flexible in-house research environment for treatment planning on small animals. The software package, called DOSCTP, provides a user-friendly platform for DICOM computed tomography-based Monte Carlo dose calculation using the EGSnrcMP-based DOSXYZnrc code. Validation of the treatment planning was performed by comparing the dose distributions for simple photon beam geometries calculated through the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system and measurements. A treatment plan for a mouse based on a CT image set by a 360-deg photon arc is demonstrated. It is shown that it is possible to create 3D conformal treatment plans for small animals with consideration of inhomogeneities using small photon beam field sizes in the diameter range of 0.5-5 cm, with conformal dose covering the target volume while sparing the surrounding critical tissue. It is also found that Monte Carlo simulation is suitable to carry out treatment planning dose calculation for small animal anatomy with voxel size about one order of magnitude smaller than that of the human.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 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

Citations39
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207