MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078559692 · doi:10.1118/1.1813891

CSnrc: Correlated sampling Monte Carlo calculations using EGSnrc

2004· article· en· W2078559692 on OpenAlexafffund
Lesley Buckley, I. Kawrakow, D. W. O. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNational Research Council Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodDosimetryImaging phantomPhysicsSampling (signal processing)PhotonComputational physicsVariance reductionComputer scienceAlgorithmOpticsNuclear medicineMathematicsStatisticsDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CSnrc, a new user-code for the EGSnrc Monte Carlo system is described. This user-code improves the efficiency when calculating ratios of doses from similar geometries. It uses a correlated sampling variance reduction technique. CSnrc is developed from an existing EGSnrc user-code CAVRZnrc and improves upon the correlated sampling algorithm used in an earlier version of the code written for the EGS4 Monte Carlo system. Improvements over the EGS4 version of the algorithm avoid repetition of sections of particle tracks. The new code includes a rectangular phantom geometry not available in other EGSnrc cylindrical codes. Comparison to CAVRZnrc shows gains in efficiency of up to a factor of 64 for a variety of test geometries when computing the ratio of doses to the cavity for two geometries. CSnrc is well suited to in-phantom calculations and is used to calculate the central electrode correction factor Pcel in high-energy photon and electron beams. Current dosimetry protocols base the value of Pcel on earlier Monte Carlo calculations. The current CSnrc calculations achieve 0.02% statistical uncertainties on Pcel, much lower than those previously published. The current values of Pcel compare well with the values used in dosimetry protocols for photon beams. For electrons beams, CSnrc calculations are reported at the reference depth used in recent protocols and show up to a 0.2% correction for a graphite electrode, a correction currently ignored by dosimetry protocols. The calculations show that for a 1 mm diameter aluminum central electrode, the correction factor differs somewhat from the values used in both the IAEA TRS-398 code of practice and the AAPM's TG-51 protocol.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations41
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207