Experimental evaluation of a GPU‐based Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm in the Monaco treatment planning system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new GPU-based Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm (GPUMCD), devel-oped by the vendor Elekta for the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS), is capable of modeling dose for both a standard linear accelerator and an Elekta MRI linear accelerator. We have experimentally evaluated this algorithm for a standard Elekta Agility linear accelerator. A beam model was developed in the Monaco TPS (research version 5.09.06) using the commissioned beam data for a 6 MV Agility linac. A heterogeneous phantom representing several scenarios - tumor-in-lung, lung, and bone-in-tissue - was designed and built. Dose calculations in Monaco were done using both the current clinical Monte Carlo algorithm, XVMC, and the new GPUMCD algorithm. Dose calculations in a Pinnacle TPS were also produced using the collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithm with heterogeneity correc-tion. Calculations were compared with the measured doses using an ionization chamber (A1SL) and Gafchromic EBT3 films for 2 × 2 cm2, 5 × 5 cm2, and 10 × 10 cm2 field sizes. The percentage depth doses (PDDs) calculated by XVMC and GPUMCD in a homogeneous solid water phantom were within 2%/2 mm of film measurements and within 1% of ion chamber measurements. For the tumor-in-lung phantom, the calculated doses were within 2.5%/2.5 mm of film measurements for GPUMCD. For the lung phantom, doses calculated by all of the algorithms were within 3%/3 mm of film measurements, except for the 2 × 2 cm2 field size where the CCC algorithm underestimated the depth dose by ~ 5% in a larger extent of the lung region. For the bone phantom, all of the algorithms were equivalent and calculated dose to within 2%/2 mm of film measurements, except at the interfaces. Both GPUMCD and XVMC showed interface effects, which were more pronounced for GPUMCD and were comparable to film measurements, whereas the CCC algorithm showed these effects poorly.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".