MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132707158 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/51/13/r17

Fifty years of Monte Carlo simulations for medical physics

2006· review· en· W2132707158 on OpenAlexaff
D. W. O. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodStatistical physicsPhotonPhysicsRange (aeronautics)Monte Carlo method in statistical physicsMonte Carlo molecular modelingHybrid Monte CarloMedical physicsComputer scienceComputational physicsMarkov chain Monte CarloMathematicsOpticsAerospace engineeringEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monte Carlo techniques have become ubiquitous in medical physics over the last 50 years with a doubling of papers on the subject every 5 years between the first PMB paper in 1967 and 2000 when the numbers levelled off. While recognizing the many other roles that Monte Carlo techniques have played in medical physics, this review emphasizes techniques for electron-photon transport simulations. The broad range of codes available is mentioned but there is special emphasis on the EGS4/EGSnrc code system which the author has helped develop for 25 years. The importance of the 1987 Erice Summer School on Monte Carlo techniques is highlighted. As an illustrative example of the role Monte Carlo techniques have played, the history of the correction for wall attenuation and scatter in an ion chamber is presented as it demonstrates the interplay between a specific problem and the development of tools to solve the problem which in turn leads to applications in other areas.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations503
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207