Sci‐Fri PM: Planning‐06: Verification of a Monte Carlo based treatment planning system in a homogeneous water phantom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this abstract we present the results of the verification of the XVMC based treatment planning system "PrecisePLAN" (release 2.50; Elekta). We investigated a 6 MV photon beam from an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator in a homogeneous water phantom. Measurements of profiles, percentage depth dose curves (pdds) and relative output factors (ROFs) for square fields of sides 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20 and 30 cm were compared to calculations performed with PrecisePLAN and simulations with BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc. Following recommendations from the literature we investigated the deviations between measurements and calculations of the profiles and pdds in four regions and checked for the criterion of acceptability (given in parenthesis): the inner region (3 %, 2 % at the central axis), the penumbra (2 mm distance to agreement), the outer region (3 %) and the build up region (2 mm). The mean deviation +/- 1.5 times the standard deviation should lie within the confidence interval of the thresholds quoted above. For the ROFs we found very good agreement with the measurement. The deviations are lower than two and one percent for PrecisePLAN and BEAMnrc, respectively, for the investigated field sizes. Also most of the profiles and pdds fulfill the criteria of acceptability given above, but for the large field sizes some of the profiles and pdds fall outside the threshold values. The overall agreement between measurements and calculations, especially for the clinically relevant situations in modern conformal/IMRT techniques, is clinically acceptable.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".