MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082859509 · doi:10.1118/1.1288681

Proton loss model for therapeutic beam dose calculations

2000· article· en· W2082859509 on OpenAlexafffund
George A. Sandison, Alexei V. Chvetsov

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodPencil (optics)ProtonPhysicsGaussianScatteringProton therapySuperposition principleComputational physicsBeam (structure)Pencil-beam scanningAtomic physicsNuclear physicsOpticsQuantum mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A transport algorithm called the proton loss (PL) model is developed for proton pencil beams of therapeutic energies. The PL model takes into account inelastic nuclear reactions, pathlength straggling, and energy-loss straggling and predicts the 3D dose distribution from a proton pencil beam. In proton beams, the multiple scattering and ionizational energy loss processes approach their diffusional limit where scattering and energy loss probability densities become Gaussian. Therefore we chose to derive the PL model from the Fermi-Eyges diffusional multiple scattering theory and the Gaussian theory of energy straggling. We first introduce a generalization of the Fermi-Eyges equation for proton pencil beams, labeled the proton loss (PL) transport equation. This new equation includes terms that model inelastic nuclear reactions as a depth-dependent absorption and pathlength straggling as a quasi-absorption. Then energy straggling is taken into account by using a weighted superposition of a discrete number of elementary pencil beams. These elementary pencil beams have different initial energies and lose energy according to the CSDA, thus they have different ranges of penetration. A final solution for the proton beam transport is obtained as a linear combination of elementary pencil beam solutions with weights defined by the Gaussian evolution of the proton energy spectrum with depth. A numerical comparison of the dose distribution predictions of the PL model with measurements and PTRAN Monte Carlo simulations indicates the model is both computational fast and accurate.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.296 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations20
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207