Monte Carlo role in radiobiological modelling of radiotherapy outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiobiological models are essential components of modern radiotherapy. They are increasingly applied to optimize and evaluate the quality of different treatment planning modalities. They are frequently used in designing new radiotherapy clinical trials by estimating the expected therapeutic ratio of new protocols. In radiobiology, the therapeutic ratio is estimated from the expected gain in tumour control probability (TCP) to the risk of normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). However, estimates of TCP/NTCP are currently based on the deterministic and simplistic linear-quadratic formalism with limited prediction power when applied prospectively. Given the complex and stochastic nature of the physical, chemical and biological interactions associated with spatial and temporal radiation induced effects in living tissues, it is conjectured that methods based on Monte Carlo (MC) analysis may provide better estimates of TCP/NTCP for radiotherapy treatment planning and trial design. Indeed, over the past few decades, methods based on MC have demonstrated superior performance for accurate simulation of radiation transport, tumour growth and particle track structures; however, successful application of modelling radiobiological response and outcomes in radiotherapy is still hampered with several challenges. In this review, we provide an overview of some of the main techniques used in radiobiological modelling for radiotherapy, with focus on the MC role as a promising computational vehicle. We highlight the current challenges, issues and future potentials of the MC approach towards a comprehensive systems-based framework in radiobiological modelling for radiotherapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".