MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054051750 · doi:10.1118/1.3168966

Variations of lung density and geometry on inhomogeneity correction algorithms: A Monte Carlo dosimetric evaluation

2009· article· en· W2054051750 on OpenAlexaff
James C. L. Chow, Michael K. K. Leung, Jake Van Dyk

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodAlgorithmComputer scienceGeometryMathematicsMedical physicsPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work contributed the following new information to the study of inhomogeneity correction algorithm: (1) Evaluation of lung dose calculation methods as a function of lung relative electron density (rhoe,lung) and treatment geometry and (2) comparison of doses calculated using the collapsed cone convolution (CCC) and adaptive convolution (AC) in lung using the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation with the EGSnrc-based code. The variations of rhoe,lung and geometry such as the position and dimension of the lung were studied with different photon beam energies and field sizes. Three groups of inhomogeneous lung phantoms, namely, "slab," "column," and "cube," with different positions, volumes, and shapes of lung in water as well as clinical computed tomography lung images were used. The rhoe,lung in each group of phantoms vary from 0.05 to 0.7. 6 and 18 MV photon beams with small (4 x 4 cm2) and medium (10 x 10 cm2) field sizes produced by a Varian 21 EX linear accelerator were used. This study reveals that doses in the inhomogeneous lung calculated by the CCC match well with those by AC within +/- 1%, indicating that the AC, with an advantage of shorter computing times (three to four times shorter than CCC), is a good substitute for CCC. Comparing the CCC and AC to MC in general, significant dose deviations are found when the rhoe,lung is < or =0.3. The degree of deviation depends on the photon beam energy and field size and is relatively large when high-energy photon beams with small fields are used. For penumbra widths (20%-80%), the CCC and AC agree well with MC for the slab and cube phantoms with the lung volumes at the central beam axis (CAX). However, deviations (>2 mm) occur in the column phantoms, with two lung volumes separated by a unit density column along the CAX in the middle using the 18 MV beam with 4 x 4 cm2 field for rhoe,lung < or =0.1. This study provides new dosimetric data to evaluate the impact of the variations of rhoe,lung and geometry on dose calculations in inhomogeneous media using CCC and AC.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207