MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078461858 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/57/6/1543

An in-depth Monte Carlo study of lateral electron disequilibrium for small fields in ultra-low density lung: implications for modern radiation therapy

2012· article· en· W2078461858 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brandon Disher, George Hajdok, Stewart Gaede, Jerry Battista

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDisequilibriumMonte Carlo methodRadiationElectronComputational physicsStatistical physicsPhysicsMedicineNuclear physicsStatisticsMathematicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern radiation therapy techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) use tightly conformed megavoltage x-ray fields to irradiate a tumour within lung tissue. For these conditions, lateral electron disequilibrium (LED) may occur, which systematically perturbs the dose distribution within tumour and nearby lung tissues. The goal of this work is to determine the combination of beam and lung density parameters that cause significant LED within and near the tumour. The Monte Carlo code DOSXYZnrc (National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON) was used to simulate four 20 × 20 × 25 cm(3) water-lung-water slab phantoms, which contained lung tissue only, or one of three different centrally located small tumours (sizes: 1 × 1 × 1, 3 × 3 × 3, 5 × 5 × 5 cm(3)). Dose calculations were performed using combinations of six beam energies (Co-60 up to 18 MV), five field sizes (1 × 1 cm(2) up to 15 × 15 cm(2)), and 12 lung densities (0.001 g cm(-3) up to 1 g cm(-3)) for a total of 1440 simulations. We developed the relative depth-dose factor (RDDF), which can be used to characterize the extent of LED (RDDF <1.0). For RDDF <0.7 severe LED occurred, and both lung and tumour dose were drastically reduced. For example, a 6 MV (3 × 3 cm(2)) field was used to irradiate a 1 cm(3) tumour embedded in lung with ultra-low density of 0.001 g cm(-3) (RDDF = 0.2). Dose in up-stream lung and tumour centre were reduced by as much as 80% with respect to the water density calculation. These reductions were worse for smaller tumours irradiated with high energy beams, small field sizes, and low lung density. In conclusion, SBRT trials based on dose calculations in homogeneous tissue are misleading as they do not reflect the actual dosimetric effects due to LED. Future clinical trials should only use dose calculation engines that can account for electron scatter, with special attention given to patients with low lung density (i.e. emphysema). In cases where tissue inhomogeneity corrections are applied, the nature of the correction used may be inadequate in predicting the correct level of LED. In either case, the dose to the tumour is not the prescribed dose and clinical response data are uncertain. The new information from this study can be used by radiation oncologists who wish to perform advanced radiation therapy techniques while avoiding the deleterious predictable dosimetric effects of LED.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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