MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2082411368 · doi:10.1118/1.2761667

TH‐C‐AUD‐08: Comparison of Tomotherapy Dose Distributions for 6MV X‐Rays and Different Cobalt‐60 Source Designs Using Monte Carlo Methods

2007· article· en· W2082411368 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chandra P. Joshi, Johnson Darko, S Dhanesar, P B Vidyasagar, L J Schreiner

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsCancer Care South EastQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTomotherapyMonte Carlo methodLinear particle acceleratorCollimatorNuclear medicineImaging phantomRadiation treatment planningDosimetryBeam (structure)PhysicsRadiosurgeryMaterials scienceOpticsRadiation therapyMathematicsMedicineRadiologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To investigate intensity modulated dose distributions for Co‐60 based tomotherapy with cylindrical and rectangular shaped source geometries for a typical head and neck case using Monte Carlo (MC) methods. Method and Materials: EGSnrc/BEAMnrc MC code has been used to model three Co‐60 tomotherapy units and a 6 MV (Varian 2100EX) unit. Two of the Co‐60 units, consisting of modified collimator systems with customized binary multi‐leaf collimator (BMLC) were modeled for 3 and 5 cm long rectangular sources and SADs of 70 and 80 cm, respectively. The other units were a conventional Co‐60 unit (T780c) with 2 cm diameter cylindrical source (MDS Nordion, Canada) and a 6 MV Linac with an addon MIMiC BMLC (NOMOS, USA). All the Co‐60 sources had identical active volumes. EGSnrc/DOSXYZnrc MC code was used to calculate the intensity modulated beamlets and fan beam dose profiles in a water phantom. The intensity modulated energy fluence profiles from a 6 MV Linac and two Co‐60 units using the same beam segments will be compared. Tomotherapy treatment plans for a typical H&N case were calculated. All plans were optimized for PTV, two neck nodes and the spinal cord using the same optimization parameters. The treatment planning was provided by an in‐house inverse planning system based on a multi‐objective gradient‐search approach using MC calculated dose data. Results: Comparisons of optimized dose distributions, dose difference maps and dose area histogram will be presented. Despite significant differences in fluence profiles for Co‐60 and 6 MV beams, optimized dose distribution for all plans met the dose‐volume and tolerance criteria. However, the integral doses are potentially higher for Co‐60 plans particularly with longer source size and shorter SAD. Conclusions: Co‐60 based tomotherapy with appropriate source and BMLC design is dosimetrically viable. Research supported (in‐kind) by MDS Nordion, Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→