MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800448309 · doi:10.1002/acm2.12343

A fast jaw‐tracking model for <scp>VMAT</scp> and <scp>IMRT</scp> Monte Carlo simulations

2018· article· en· W2800448309 on OpenAlexaff
R Townson, Hilary Egglestone, Sergei Zavgorodni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaBC Cancer AgencyNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTracking (education)Monte Carlo methodComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 (MLCs). 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 MLCs 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 BEAMnrc 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 cm2, 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 EPIDose 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207