RECORDS: improved Reporting of montE CarlO RaDiation transport Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monte Carlo simulation of radiation transport is becoming an increasingly common tool used in both diagnostic and radiation therapy studies. Unfortunately, those of us involved with refereeing and/or editing the resulting reports have found that many papers fail to adequately describe the Monte Carlo components of these studies. In an effort to improve on this situation, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine established a task group charged to “develop a set of guidelines regarding the Monte Carlo related information that should be included when publishing studies that include Monte Carlo simulations.” The resulting RECORDS (improved Reporting of montE CarlO RaDiation transport Studies) report has been published as open access ( 1 Sechopoulos I. Rogers D.W.O. Bazalova-Carter M. et al. RECORDS: improved Reporting of montE CarlO RaDiation transport Studies: Report of the AAPM Research Committee Task Group 268. Med Phys. 2018; 45: e1-e5 Crossref PubMed Scopus (131) Google Scholar ) and is available at https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12702.
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 | 0.540 | 0.794 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.037 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.019 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".