MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2070607141 · doi:10.1118/1.3613052

MO‐G‐BRB‐01: A Combined Dose Delivery and Transmission Dose Verification Model for a Small Animal Precision Irradiator for Pre‐Clinical Studies

2011· article· en· W2070607141 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick V. Granton, Scott van Hoof, Mark Podesta, S. Nijsten, W van Elmpt, Frank Verhaegen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodIrradiationNuclear medicineDetectorAnimal modelCalibrationMaterials sciencePhysicsOpticsMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Novel small animal micro‐irradiators are becoming available for pre‐clinical research but they lack dedicated treatment planning systems. The purpose of this study is to develop both a Monte Carlo (MC) model and a portal dose prediction model of a small animal micro‐IR to enable forward dose calculations and compare the planned against the delivered treatment. Methods: A MC model of a small animal micro‐IR from the x‐ray tube assembly to the detector was developed. The model was compared to radiochromic film and portal images for validation. A portal dose calibration model was also developed and portal dose images were compared to film measurements. A rodent was irradiated with 1 Gy at 225 kVp (0.32 mm Cu) while portal images were acquired. A simulated portal image from the MC model was compared to the portal image acquired during irradiation. Results: Simulations of the MC modelˈs x‐ray spectra, beam profile, and half value layer thicknesses agreement within 2 % against measurements or external calculations. The portal dose prediction model resulted with 63% of pixels with a gamma value less than 1 for a gamma criterion of 5% 0.8 mm. A visual comparison between the simulated portal image and acquired portal image during irradiation of a rodent show good agreement but intensity values around regions of bone deviate from the acquired portal image. Conclusion: We have demonstrated that we can simulate the entire irradiation process of a small animal micro‐irradiator and generate comparable predicted portal images compared to acquired portal images. We believe that further refinement to the tissue and density assignment in the MC model will improve our results.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→