A direct voxel tracking method for four‐dimensional Monte Carlo dose calculations in deforming anatomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work we present a method of calculating dose in deforming anatomy where the position and shape of each dose voxel is tracked as the anatomy changes. The EGSnrc/DOSXYZnrc Monte Carlo code was modified to calculate dose in voxels that are deformed according to deformation vectors obtained from a nonlinear image registration algorithm. The defDOSXYZ code was validated by consistency checks and by comparing calculations against DOSXYZnrc calculations. Calculations in deforming phantoms were compared with a dose remapping method employing trilinear interpolation. Dose calculations with the deforming voxels agree with DOSXYZnrc calculations within 1%. In simple deforming rectangular phantoms the trilinear dose remapping method was found to underestimate the dose by up to 29% for a 1.0 cm voxel size within the field, with larger discrepancies in regions of steep dose gradients. The agreement between the two calculation methods improved with smaller voxel size and deformation magnitude. A comparison of dose remapping from Inhale to Exhale in an anatomical breathing phantom demonstrated that dose deformations are underestimated by up to 16% in the penumbra and 8% near the surface with trilinear interpolation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".