MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055989650 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/50/5/012

IMRT head and neck treatment planning with a commercially available Monte Carlo based planning system

2005· article· en· W2055989650 on OpenAlexafffund
Chantal Boudreau, Emily Heath, Jan Seuntjens, Olivier Ballivy, William Parker

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodNuclear medicineRadiation treatment planningPercentage depth dose curveMedicineDosimetryTomotherapyQuality assuranceRadiation therapyIonization chamberPhysicsMathematicsStatisticsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The PEREGRINE Monte Carlo dose-calculation system (North American Scientific, Cranberry Township, PA) is the first commercially available Monte Carlo dose-calculation code intended specifically for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning and quality assurance. In order to assess the impact of Monte Carlo based dose calculations for IMRT clinical cases, dose distributions for 11 head and neck patients were evaluated using both PEREGRINE and the CORVUS (North American Scientific, Cranberry Township, PA) finite size pencil beam (FSPB) algorithm with equivalent path-length (EPL) inhomogeneity correction. For the target volumes, PEREGRINE calculations predict, on average, a less than 2% difference in the calculated mean and maximum doses to the gross tumour volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV). An average 16% +/- 4% and 12% +/- 2% reduction in the volume covered by the prescription isodose line was observed for the GTV and CTV, respectively. Overall, no significant differences were noted in the doses to the mandible and spinal cord. For the parotid glands, PEREGRINE predicted a 6% +/- 1% increase in the volume of tissue receiving a dose greater than 25 Gy and an increase of 4% +/- 1% in the mean dose. Similar results were noted for the brainstem where PEREGRINE predicted a 6% +/- 2% increase in the mean dose. The observed differences between the PEREGRINE and CORVUS calculated dose distributions are attributed to secondary electron fluence perturbations, which are not modelled by the EPL correction, issues of organ outlining, particularly in the vicinity of air cavities, and differences in dose reporting (dose to water versus dose to tissue type).

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations36
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207