A Monte Carlo investigation of lung brachytherapy treatment planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Iodine-125 ((125)I) and Caesium-131 ((131)Cs) brachytherapy have been used in conjunction with sublobar resection to reduce the local recurrence of stage I non-small cell lung cancer compared with resection alone. Treatment planning for this procedure is typically performed using only a seed activity nomogram or look-up table to determine seed strand spacing for the implanted mesh. Since the post-implant seed geometry is difficult to predict, the nomogram is calculated using the TG-43 formalism for seeds in a planar geometry. In this work, the EGSnrc user-code BrachyDose is used to recalculate nomograms using a variety of tissue models for (125)I and (131)Cs seeds. Calculated prescription doses are compared to those calculated using TG-43. Additionally, patient CT and contour data are used to generate virtual implants to study the effects that post-implant deformation and patient-specific tissue heterogeneity have on perturbing nomogram-derived dose distributions. Differences of up to 25% in calculated prescription dose are found between TG-43 and Monte Carlo calculations with the TG-43 formalism underestimating prescription doses in general. Differences between the TG-43 formalism and Monte Carlo calculated prescription doses are greater for (125)I than for (131)Cs seeds. Dose distributions are found to change significantly based on implant deformation and tissues surrounding implants for patient-specific virtual implants. Results suggest that accounting for seed grid deformation and the effects of non-water media, at least approximately, are likely required to reliably predict dose distributions in lung brachytherapy patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".