MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067220000 · doi:10.1118/1.3613180

TU‐E‐BRB‐04: Fast Monte Carlo Calculations in Magnetic Fields with GPUMCD for the MRI‐Linac

2011· article· en· W2067220000 on OpenAlexaff
Sami Hissoiny, Philippe Després, Benoı̂t Ozell, B.W. Raaymakers

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodLinear particle acceleratorPhysicsMedical physicsNuclear medicineNuclear magnetic resonanceComputational physicsMedicineOpticsMathematicsBeam (structure)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To develop a fast Monte Carlo code dedicated to a new hybrid imaging‐treatment modality, the MRI‐Linac, involving the irradiation of a patient in the presence of a strong magnetic field (MF). These conditions require a dose calculation engine capable of coping with the effect of the MF on the dose distribution during the planning stage. It is not likely that analytical solutions such as pencil beams calculations can be efficiently adapted for dose calculations within a MF. Monte Carlo simulations seem more appropriate but are typically too slow for a routine clinical utilization, let alone an online image‐based replanning approach. Methods: GPUMCD, a fast GPU‐based Monte Carlo dose calculation platform, was adapted to handle dose calculations within a magnetic field. The code was benchmarked and validated through comparisons with experimental measurements in two cases where large magnetic field induce significant dose effects at air‐tissue interfaces. The validation also included a timing benchmark in a clinically representative prostate case to evaluate if online dose calculation is possible. Results: GPUMCD was found to produce accurate dose distributions, according to a 2%‐2mm gamma analysis, when compared to experimental measurements. Furthermore, execution times of less than 0.4 seconds were achieved for one beam in a prostate case phantom for a 2% statistical uncertainty while 0.8 seconds are required for a 7 beams plan having the same uncertainty. Conclusions: These results suggest that GPUMCD is an interesting candidate for dose calculations for a hybrid MRI‐Linac modality. Its accuracy has been validated against experimental measurements and its speed let envision online replanning based on changes in anatomy found at the time of treatment.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207