On the dosimetric behaviour of photon dose calculation algorithms in the presence of simple geometric heterogeneities: comparison with Monte Carlo calculations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparative study was performed to reveal differences and relative figures of merit of seven different calculation algorithms for photon beams when applied to inhomogeneous media. The following algorithms were investigated: Varian Eclipse: the anisotropic analytical algorithm, and the pencil beam with modified Batho correction; Nucletron Helax-TMS: the collapsed cone and the pencil beam with equivalent path length correction; CMS XiO: the multigrid superposition and the fast Fourier transform convolution; Philips Pinnacle: the collapsed cone. Monte Carlo simulations (MC) performed with the EGSnrc codes BEAMnrc and DOSxyznrc from NRCC in Ottawa were used as a benchmark. The study was carried out in simple geometrical water phantoms (rho = 1.00 g cm(-3)) with inserts of different densities simulating light lung tissue (rho = 0.035 g cm(-3)), normal lung (rho = 0.20 g cm(-3)) and cortical bone tissue (rho = 1.80 g cm(-3)). Experiments were performed for low- and high-energy photon beams (6 and 15 MV) and for square (13 x 13 cm2) and elongated rectangular (2.8 x 13 cm2) fields. Analysis was carried out on the basis of depth dose curves and transverse profiles at several depths. Assuming the MC data as reference, gamma index analysis was carried out distinguishing between regions inside the non-water inserts or inside the uniform water. For this study, a distance to agreement was set to 3 mm while the dose difference varied from 2% to 10%. In general all algorithms based on pencil-beam convolutions showed a systematic deficiency in managing the presence of heterogeneous media. In contrast, complicated patterns were observed for the advanced algorithms with significant discrepancies observed between algorithms in the lighter materials (rho = 0.035 g cm(-3)), enhanced for the most energetic beam. For denser, and more clinical, densities a better agreement among the sophisticated algorithms with respect to MC was observed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".