A fast jaw‐tracking model for <scp>VMAT</scp> and <scp>IMRT</scp> Monte Carlo simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Modern radiotherapy techniques involve routine use of volumetric arc therapy ( VMAT ) and intensity modulated radiotherapy ( IMRT ) with jaw‐tracking – dynamic motion of the secondary collimators (jaws) in tandem with multi‐leaf collimators ( MLC s). These modalities require accurate dose calculations for the purposes of treatment planning and dose verification. Monte Carlo ( MC ) methods for radiotherapy dose calculation are widely accepted as capable of achieving high accuracy. This paper presents an efficiency‐enhancement method for secondary collimator modeling, presented in the context of a tool for MC ‐based dose second checks. The model constitutes an accuracy trade‐off in the source model for the sake of efficiency enhancement, but maintains the advantages of MC transport in patient heterogeneities. The secondary collimator model is called Flat‐Absorbing‐Jaw‐Tracking ( FAJT ). Transmission through and scatter from the secondary collimators is neglected, and jaws are modeled as perfectly absorbing planes. To couple the motion of secondary collimators with MLC s for jaw‐tracking, the FAJT model was built into the VCU ‐ MLC model. Gamma‐index analysis of the dose distributions from FAJT against the full BEAM nrc MC simulations showed over 99% pass rate for a range of open fields, two clinical IMRT , and one VMAT treatment plan, for 2%/2 mm criteria above 10%. Using FAJT , the simulation speed of the secondary collimators for open fields increased by a factor of 237, 1489, and 1395 for 4 × 4, 10 × 10, and 30 × 30 cm 2 , respectively. In general, clinically oriented simulation times are reduced from “hours” to “minutes” on identical hardware. Results for nine representative clinical cases (seven with jaw‐tracking) are presented. The average 2%/2 mm γ ‐test success rate above the 80% isodose was 96.8% when tested against the EPID ose electronic portal image‐based dose reconstruction method and 97.3% against the Eclipse analytical anisotropic algorithm.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".