MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764011047 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aa9166

Efficiency improvement in proton dose calculations with an equivalent restricted stopping power formalism

2017· article· en· W2764011047 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel C. Maneval, Hugo Bouchard, Benoı̂t Ozell, Philippe Després

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversité de MontréalUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaElektaCompute Canada
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodFormalism (music)PhysicsProton therapyProtonStandard deviationMathematicsComputational physicsNuclear physicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The equivalent restricted stopping power formalism is introduced for proton mean energy loss calculations under the continuous slowing down approximation. The objective is the acceleration of Monte Carlo dose calculations by allowing larger steps while preserving accuracy. The fractional energy loss per step length ϵ was obtained with a secant method and a Gauss–Kronrod quadrature estimation of the integral equation relating the mean energy loss to the step length. The midpoint rule of the Newton–Cotes formulae was then used to solve this equation, allowing the creation of a lookup table linking ϵ to the equivalent restricted stopping power L eq , used here as a key physical quantity. The mean energy loss for any step length was simply defined as the product of the step length with L eq . Proton inelastic collisions with electrons were added to GPUMCD , a GPU-based Monte Carlo dose calculation code. The proton continuous slowing-down was modelled with the L eq formalism. GPUMCD was compared to Geant4 in a validation study where ionization processes alone were activated and a voxelized geometry was used. The energy straggling was first switched off to validate the L eq formalism alone. Dose differences between Geant4 and GPUMCD were smaller than 0.31% for the L eq formalism. The mean error and the standard deviation were below 0.035% and 0.038% respectively. 99.4 to 100% of GPUMCD dose points were consistent with a 0.3% dose tolerance. GPUMCD 80% falloff positions ( R 80 ) matched Geant’s R 80 within 1 μ m. With the energy straggling, dose differences were below 2.7% in the Bragg peak falloff and smaller than 0.83% elsewhere. The R 80 positions matched within 100 μ m. The overall computation times to transport one million protons with GPUMCD were 31–173 ms. Under similar conditions, Geant4 computation times were 1.4–20 h. The L eq formalism led to an intrinsic efficiency gain factor ranging between 30–630, increasing with the prescribed accuracy of simulations. The L eq formalism allows larger steps leading to a O ( c o n s t a n t ) algorithmic time complexity. It significantly accelerates Monte Carlo proton transport while preserving accuracy. It therefore constitutes a promising variance reduction technique for computing proton dose distributions in a clinical context.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207