MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137399851 · doi:10.1118/1.4935144

Monte Carlo validation of the TrueBeam 10XFFF phase–space files for applications in lung SABR

2015· article· en· W2137399851 on OpenAlexaff
Tony Teke, Cheryl Duzenli, Alanah Bergman, Francis Viel, Parmveer Atwal, Ermias Gete

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSABR volatility modelTruebeamMonte Carlo methodComputer sciencePhysicsMedical physicsStatistical physicsMathematicsStatisticsOpticsLinear particle acceleratorEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To establish the clinical acceptability of universal Monte Carlo phase-space data for the 10XFFF (flattening filter free) photon beam on the Varian TrueBeam Linac, including previously unreported data for small fields, output factors, and inhomogeneous media. The study was particularly aimed at confirming the suitability for use in simulations of lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy treatment plans. METHODS: Monte Carlo calculated percent depth doses (PDDs), transverse profiles, and output factors for the TrueBeam 10 MV FFF beam using generic phase-space data that have been released by the Varian MC research team were compared with in-house measurements and published data from multiple institutions (ten Linacs from eight different institutions). BEAMnrc was used to create field size specific phase-spaces located underneath the jaws. Doses were calculated with DOSXYZnrc in a water phantom for fields ranging from 1 × 1 to 40 × 40 cm(2). Particular attention was paid to small fields (down to 1 × 1 cm(2)) and dose per pulse effects on dosimeter response for high dose rate 10XFFF beams. Ion chamber measurements were corrected for changes in ion collection efficiency (P(ion)) with increasing dose per pulse. MC and ECLIPSE ANISOTROPIC ANALYTICAL ALGORITHM (AAA) calculated PDDs were compared to Gafchromic film measurement in inhomogeneous media (water, bone, lung). RESULTS: Measured data from all machines agreed with Monte Carlo simulations within 1.0% and 1.5% for PDDs and in-field transverse profiles, respectively, for field sizes >1 × 1 cm(2) in a homogeneous water phantom. Agreements in the 80%-20% penumbra widths were better than 2 mm for all the fields that were compared. For all the field sizes considered, the agreement between their measured and calculated output factors was within 1.1%. Monte Carlo results for dose to water at water/bone, bone/lung, and lung/water interfaces as well as within lung agree with film measurements to within 2.8% for 10 × 10 and 3 × 3 cm(2) field sizes. This represents a significant improvement over the performance of the ECLIPSE AAA. CONCLUSIONS: The 10XFFF phase-space data offered by the Varian Monte Carlo research team have been validated for clinical use using measured, interinstitutional beam data in water and with film dosimetry in inhomogeneous media.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207