The use of tetrahedral mesh geometries in Monte Carlo simulation of applicator based brachytherapy dose distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accounting for brachytherapy applicator attenuation is part of the recommendations from the recent report of AAPM Task Group 186. To do so, model based dose calculation algorithms require accurate modelling of the applicator geometry. This can be non-trivial in the case of irregularly shaped applicators such as the Fletcher Williamson gynaecological applicator or balloon applicators with possibly irregular shapes employed in accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) performed using electronic brachytherapy sources (EBS). While many of these applicators can be modelled using constructive solid geometry (CSG), the latter may be difficult and time-consuming. Alternatively, these complex geometries can be modelled using tessellated geometries such as tetrahedral meshes (mesh geometries (MG)). Recent versions of Monte Carlo (MC) codes Geant4 and MCNP6 allow for the use of MG. The goal of this work was to model a series of applicators relevant to brachytherapy using MG. Applicators designed for (192)Ir sources and 50 kV EBS were studied; a shielded vaginal applicator, a shielded Fletcher Williamson applicator and an APBI balloon applicator. All applicators were modelled in Geant4 and MCNP6 using MG and CSG for dose calculations. CSG derived dose distributions were considered as reference and used to validate MG models by comparing dose distribution ratios. In general agreement within 1% for the dose calculations was observed for all applicators between MG and CSG and between codes when considering volumes inside the 25% isodose surface. When compared to CSG, MG required longer computation times by a factor of at least 2 for MC simulations using the same code. MCNP6 calculation times were more than ten times shorter than Geant4 in some cases. In conclusion we presented methods allowing for high fidelity modelling with results equivalent to CSG. To the best of our knowledge MG offers the most accurate representation of an irregular APBI balloon applicator.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".