Unsupervised classification of tissues composition for Monte Carlo dose calculation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the potential of k-means clustering to efficiently reduce the variety of materials needed in Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation. A numerical phantom with 31 human tissues surrounded by water is created. K-means clustering is used to group the tissues in clusters of constant elemental composition. Four different distance measures are used to perform the clustering technique: Euclidean, Standardized Euclidean, Chi-Squared and Cityblock. Dose distributions are calculated with MC simulations for both low-kV photons and MeV protons using the clustered and reference elemental composition. Comparison between the dose distributions in the clustered and non-clustered phantom are made to assess the impact of clustering with each distance measure. The statistical significance of the differences observed between the four different metrics is determined by comparing the accuracy of energy absorption coefficients (EAC) of low-kV photons and proton stopping powers relative to water (SPR) for repeated clustering procedures. The performance of the proposed approach for a larger number of original materials is evaluated similarly by using a population of 62 000 statistically generated materials grouped into classes defined with supervised and unsupervised classification. In the phantom geometry, the Chi-Squared distance is the one introducing the smallest error on dose distribution and significant differences are observed between the EAC and SPR values predicted by each distance metric. The proposed approach is also shown to be equivalent to a state-of-the-art supervised classification method for proton therapy, but beneficial for low-kV photons applications. In conclusion, k-means clustering successfully reduces the variety of materials needed for accurate MC dose calculation. Based on the performance of four distance measures, we conclude that k-means clustering using the Chi-Squared distance introduces the smallest errors on dose distribution. The method is shown to yield similar or improved accuracy on key physical parameters compared to supervised classification.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".