Study of the IMRT interplay effect using a 4DCT Monte Carlo dose calculation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiratory motion may lead to dose errors when treating thoracic and abdominal tumours with radiotherapy. The interplay between complex multileaf collimator patterns and patient respiratory motion could result in unintuitive dose changes. We have developed a treatment reconstruction simulation computer code that accounts for interplay effects by combining multileaf collimator controller log files, respiratory trace log files, 4DCT images and a Monte Carlo dose calculator. Two three-dimensional (3D) IMRT step-and-shoot plans, a concave target and integrated boost were delivered to a 1D rigid motion phantom. Three sets of experiments were performed with 100%, 50% and 25% duty cycle gating. The log files were collected, and five simulation types were performed on each data set: continuous isocentre shift, discrete isocentre shift, 4DCT, 4DCT delivery average and 4DCT plan average. Analysis was performed using 3D gamma analysis with passing criteria of 2%, 2 mm. The simulation framework was able to demonstrate that a single fraction of the integrated boost plan was more sensitive to interplay effects than the concave target. Gating was shown to reduce the interplay effects. We have developed a 4DCT Monte Carlo simulation method that accounts for IMRT interplay effects with respiratory motion by utilizing delivery log files.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".