MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2090126617 · doi:10.1118/1.4894907

Poster - Thur Eve - 47: Monte Carlo Simulation of Scp, Sc and Sp

2014· article· en· W2090126617 on OpenAlexaff
Lixin Zhan, Runqing Jiang, Ernest Osei

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsGrand River Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodImaging phantomKermaPhysicsComputational physicsLinear particle acceleratorBeam (structure)ScatteringDosimetryPhotonField (mathematics)Percentage depth dose curveOpticsIonization chamberNuclear medicineMathematicsStatisticsIonization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The in-water output ratio (Scp), in-air output ratio (Sc), and phantom scattering factor (Sp) are important parameters for radiotherapy dose calculation. Experimentally, Scp is obtained by measuring the dose rate ratio in water phantom, and Sc the water Kerma rate ratio in air. There is no method that allows direct measurement of Sp. Monte Carlo (MC) method has been used to simulate Scp and Sc in literatures, similar to experimental setup, but no MC direct simulation of Sp available yet to the best of our knowledge. We propose in this report a method of performing direct MC simulation of Sp. Starting from the definition, we derived that Sp of a clinical photon beam can be approximated by the ratio of the dose rates contributed from the primary beam for a given field size to the reference field size. Since only the primary beam is used, any Linac head scattering should be excluded from the simulation, which can be realized by using the incident electron as a scoring parameter for MU. We performed MC simulations for Scp, Sc and Sp. Scp matches well with golden beam data. Sp obtained by the proposed method agrees well with what is obtained using the traditional method, Sp=Scp/Sc. Since the smaller the field size, the more the primary beam dominates, our Sp simulation method is accurate for small field. By analyzing the calculated data, we found that this method can be used with no problem for large fields. The difference it introduced is clinically insignificant.

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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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