Stability analysis of a deterministic dose calculation for MRI-guided radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern effort in radiotherapy to address the challenges of tumor localization and motion has led to the development of MRI guided radiotherapy technologies. Accurate dose calculations must properly account for the effects of the MRI magnetic fields. Previous work has investigated the accuracy of a deterministic linear Boltzmann transport equation (LBTE) solver that includes magnetic field, but not the stability of the iterative solution method. In this work, we perform a stability analysis of this deterministic algorithm including an investigation of the convergence rate dependencies on the magnetic field, material density, energy, and anisotropy expansion. The iterative convergence rate of the continuous and discretized LBTE including magnetic fields is determined by analyzing the spectral radius using Fourier analysis for the stationary source iteration (SI) scheme. The spectral radius is calculated when the magnetic field is included (1) as a part of the iteration source, and (2) inside the streaming-collision operator. The non-stationary Krylov subspace solver GMRES is also investigated as a potential method to accelerate the iterative convergence, and an angular parallel computing methodology is investigated as a method to enhance the efficiency of the calculation. SI is found to be unstable when the magnetic field is part of the iteration source, but unconditionally stable when the magnetic field is included in the streaming-collision operator. The discretized LBTE with magnetic fields using a space-angle upwind stabilized discontinuous finite element method (DFEM) was also found to be unconditionally stable, but the spectral radius rapidly reaches unity for very low-density media and increasing magnetic field strengths indicating arbitrarily slow convergence rates. However, GMRES is shown to significantly accelerate the DFEM convergence rate showing only a weak dependence on the magnetic field. In addition, the use of an angular parallel computing strategy is shown to potentially increase the efficiency of the dose calculation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".