MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2705598463 · doi:10.1002/mp.12413

Experimental verification of <scp>EGS</scp>nrc Monte Carlo calculated depth doses within a realistic parallel magnetic field in a polystyrene phantom

2017· article· en· W2705598463 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrei Ghila, S Steciw, B. G. Fallone, S Rathee

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImaging phantomMonte Carlo methodElectromagnetMagnetic fieldLinear particle acceleratorPhysicsBeam (structure)Computational physicsMaterials scienceNuclear magnetic resonanceNuclear medicineOpticsMagnet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Integrating a linac with a magnetic resonance imager (MRI) will revolutionize the accuracy of external beam radiation treatments. Irradiating in the presence of a strong magnetic field, however, will modify the dose distribution. These dose modifications have been investigated previously, mainly using Monte Carlo simulations. The purpose of this work is to experimentally verify the use of the EGSnrc Monte Carlo (MC) package for calculating percent depth doses (PDDs) in a homogeneous phantom, in the presence of a realistic parallel magnetic field. Methods Two cylindrical electromagnets were used to produce a 0.207 T magnetic field parallel to the central axis of a 6 MV photon beam from a clinical linac. The magnetic field was measured at discrete points along orthogonal axes, and these measurements were used to validate a full 3D magnetic field map generated using COMSOL Multiphysics. Using a small parallel plate ion chamber, the depth dose was measured in a polystyrene phantom placed inside the electromagnet bore at two separate locations: phantom top surface coinciding with top of bore, and phantom top surface coinciding with center of bore. BEAMnrc MC was used to model the linac head which was benchmarked against the linac's commissioning measurements. The depth dose in polystyrene was simulated using DOSXYZnrc MC. For the magnetic field case, the DOSXYZnrc code was slightly modified to implement the previously calculated 3D magnetic field map to be used in the standard electromagnetic macros. Results The calculated magnetic field matched the measurements within 2% of the maximum central field (0.207 T) with most points within the experimental uncertainty (1.5%). For the MC linac head model, over 93% of all simulated points passed the 2%, 2 mm γ acceptance criterion, when comparing measured and simulated lateral beam and depth dose profiles. The parallel magnetic field caused a surface dose increase, compared to the no magnetic field case, due to the Lorentz force confining contaminant electrons within the beam. The surface dose increase was measured to be approximately 10% (relative to no field Dmax) when the phantom surface coincided with the top of the electromagnet's bore. This effect was enhanced by moving the phantom surface to the center of the magnet's bore in relatively high magnetic field (> 0.13 T). The surface dose for this setup increased by 30% and the entire buildup region was affected. When the dimensions and composition of the ion chamber air cavity and entrance window were included, EGSnrc was able to accurately simulate these dose increases, both at the surface and in the buildup region. All the simulated points were within 1% of the measurements for both setups. The ferromagnetic linac head was determined to have a negligible effect on the final PDD comparison. Conclusions Irradiating in the presence of a parallel magnetic field causes measurable surface and buildup depth dose increases. We have experimentally verified that the EGSnrc Monte Carlo package is able to accurately calculate the PDDs with these surface and buildup dose modifications in a homogeneous phantom.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207