MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067826224 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/16/007

Investigation of voxel warping and energy mapping approaches for fast 4D Monte Carlo dose calculations in deformed geometries using VMC++

2011· article· en· W2067826224 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Heath, Frédéric Tessier, I. Kawrakow

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsImage warpingVoxelMonte Carlo methodGeometryEnergy (signal processing)Transformation (genetics)Computer scienceGridTetrahedronMetric (unit)AlgorithmComputational physicsMathematicsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new deformable geometry class for the VMC++ Monte Carlo code was implemented based on the voxel warping method. Alternative geometries which use tetrahedral sub-elements were implemented and efficiency improvements investigated. A new energy mapping method, based on calculating the volume overlap between deformed reference dose grid and the target dose grid, was also developed. Dose calculations using both the voxel warping and energy mapping methods were compared in simple phantoms as well as a patient geometry. The new deformed geometry implementation in VMC++ increased calculation times by approximately a factor of 6 compared to standard VMC++ calculations in rectilinear geometries. However, the tetrahedron-based geometries were found to improve computational efficiency, relative to the dodecahedron-based geometry, by a factor of 2. When an exact transformation between the reference and target geometries was provided, the voxel and energy warping methods produced identical results. However, when the transformation is not exact, there were discrepancies in the energy deposited on the target geometry which lead to significant differences in the dose calculated by the two methods. Preliminary investigations indicate that these energy differences may correlate with registration errors; however, further work is needed to determine the usefulness of this metric for quantifying registration accuracy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
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 science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.375
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.013 · 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

Citations23
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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