MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2136228454 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2000.901477

Monte Carlo validation of a portal imager scatter dose model

2002· article· en· W2136228454 on OpenAlexafffund
Siobhan Ozard, Ellen El‐Khatib

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodPhysicsPhotonDosimetryOpticsCompton scatteringComputational physicsNuclear medicineStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common and clinically significant drawback of current portal scatter dose estimation methods is the workload required to measure the scatter dose data for use in the scatter model. To address this problem, a scatter model based on first order Compton scatter was developed and validated for a photon beam energy of 6 MV. This approach was motivated by the observations that at large air gaps (i) the scatter dose is uniform across the portal image (as previously shown by others) and (ii) the scatter dose is principally from first order Compton scatter (shown here). Monte Carlo simulation was chosen for the development and validation of the model since with its use the scatter dose can be separated according to particle type and interaction history, which cannot be done experimentally. The model uses Monte Carlo derived scatter kernels that describe the imager dose from first order scattered photons generated in a 1 cm/sup 3/ voxel located 50 cm or more above the imager. The model includes the divergence and attenuation of the primary and once scattered photons. Dose from multiple scatter was dealt with effectively by slightly overestimating the dose from first scatter. For 36 phantoms (homogeneous, slab, and anthropomorphic), the root mean square deviation between the SPRs calculated using the scatter model and the SPRs from Monte Carlo data was 0.6% or less. For the anthropomorphic phantoms, the authors' model is shown to be comparable in accuracy to a current scatter dose estimation method used for in vivo dosimetry.

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)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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