MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049242735 · doi:10.1118/1.1633105

Evaluation of the first commercial Monte Carlo dose calculation engine for electron beam treatment planning

2003· article· en· W2049242735 on OpenAlexafffund
Joanna Cygler, George M. Daskalov, Gordon Chan, G Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyOttawa Regional Cancer Foundation
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodImaging phantomVoxelPhysicsLinear particle acceleratorBeam (structure)Range (aeronautics)Computational physicsMonitor unitNuclear medicineComputer scienceOpticsMathematicsMaterials scienceStatisticsMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to perform a clinical evaluation of the first commercial (MDS Nordion, now Nucletron) treatment planning system for electron beams incorporating Monte Carlo dose calculation module. This software implements Kawrakow's VMC++ voxel-based Monte Carlo calculation algorithm. The accuracy of the dose distribution calculations is evaluated by direct comparisons with extensive sets of measured data in homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms at different source-to-surface distances (SSDs) and gantry angles. We also verify the accuracy of the Monte Carlo module for monitor unit calculations in comparison with independent hand calculations for homogeneous water phantom at two different SSDs. All electron beams in the range 6-20 MeV are from a Siemens KD-2 linear accelerator. We used 10,000 or 50,000 histories/cm2 in our Monte Carlo calculations, which led to about 2.5% and 1% relative standard error of the mean of the calculated dose. The dose calculation time depends on the number of histories, the number of voxels used to map the patient anatomy, the field size, and the beam energy. The typical run time of the Monte Carlo calculations (10,000 histories/cm2) is 1.02 min on a 2.2 GHz Pentium 4 Xeon computer for a 9 MeV beam, 10 x 10 cm2 field size, incident on the phantom 15 x 15 x 10 cm3 consisting of 31 CT slices and voxels size of 3 x 3 x 3 mm3 (total of 486,720 voxels). We find good agreement (discrepancies smaller than 5%) for most of the tested dose distributions. We also find excellent agreement (discrepancies of 2.5% or less) for the monitor unit calculations relative to the independent manual calculations. The accuracy of monitor unit calculations does not depend on the SSD used, which allows the use of one virtual machine for each beam energy for all arbitrary SSDs. In some cases the test results are found to be sensitive to the voxel size applied such that bigger systematic errors (>5%) occur when large voxel sizes interfere with the extensions of heterogeneities or dose gradients because of differences between the experimental and calculated geometries. Therefore, user control over voxelization is important for high accuracy electron dose calculations.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
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 science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations97
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207