Dosimetric validation of Acuros<sup>®</sup> XB with Monte Carlo methods for photon dose calculations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The dosimetric accuracy of the recently released Acuros XB advanced dose calculation algorithm (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) is investigated for single radiation fields incident on homogeneous and heterogeneous geometries, and a comparison is made to the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA). METHODS: Ion chamber measurements for the 6 and 18 MV beams within a range of field sizes (from 4.0 x 4.0 to 30.0 x 30.0 cm2) are used to validate Acuros XB dose calculations within a unit density phantom. The dosimetric accuracy of Acuros XB in the presence of lung, low-density lung, air, and bone is determined using BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc calculations as a benchmark. Calculations using the AAA are included for reference to a current superposition/convolution standard. RESULTS: Basic open field tests in a homogeneous phantom reveal an Acuros XB agreement with measurement to within +/- 1.9% in the inner field region for all field sizes and energies. Calculations on a heterogeneous interface phantom were found to agree with Monte Carlo calculations to within +/- 2.0% (sigmaMC = 0.8%) in lung (p = 0.24 g cm(-3)) and within +/- 2.9% (sigmaMC = 0.8%) in low-density lung (p = 0.1 g cm(-3)). In comparison, differences of up to 10.2% and 17.5% in lung and low-density lung were observed in the equivalent AAA calculations. Acuros XB dose calculations performed on a phantom containing an air cavity (p = 0.001 g cm(-3)) were found to be within the range of +/- 1.5% to +/- 4.5% of the BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc calculated benchmark (sigmaMC = 0.8%) in the tissue above and below the air cavity. A comparison of Acuros XB dose calculations performed on a lung CT dataset with a BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc benchmark shows agreement within +/- 2%/2mm and indicates that the remaining differences are primarily a result of differences in physical material assignments within a CT dataset. CONCLUSIONS: By considering the fundamental particle interactions in matter based on theoretical interaction cross sections, the Acuros XB algorithm is capable of modeling radiotherapy dose deposition with accuracy only previously achievable with Monte Carlo techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".