Absolute dose calculations for Monte Carlo simulations of radiotherapy beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monte Carlo (MC) simulations have traditionally been used for single field relative comparisons with experimental data or commercial treatment planning systems (TPS). However, clinical treatment plans commonly involve more than one field. Since the contribution of each field must be accurately quantified, multiple field MC simulations are only possible by employing absolute dosimetry. Therefore, we have developed a rigorous calibration method that allows the incorporation of monitor units (MU) in MC simulations. This absolute dosimetry formalism can be easily implemented by any BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc user, and applies to any configuration of open and blocked fields, including intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans. Our approach involves the relationship between the dose scored in the monitor ionization chamber of a radiotherapy linear accelerator (linac), the number of initial particles incident on the target, and the field size. We found that for a 10 x 10 cm2 field of a 6 MV photon beam, 1 MU corresponds, in our model, to 8.129 x 10(13) +/- 1.0% electrons incident on the target and a total dose of 20.87 cGy +/- 1.0% in the monitor chambers of the virtual linac. We present an extensive experimental verification of our MC results for open and intensity-modulated fields, including a dynamic 7-field IMRT plan simulated on the CT data sets of a cylindrical phantom and of a Rando anthropomorphic phantom, which were validated by measurements using ionization chambers and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). Our simulation results are in excellent agreement with experiment, with percentage differences of less than 2%, in general, demonstrating the accuracy of our Monte Carlo absolute dose calculations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".