Optimized <i>I</i>-values for use with the Bragg additivity rule and their impact on proton stopping power and range uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Novel imaging modalities can improve the estimation of patient elemental compositions for particle treatment planning. The mean excitation energy (I-value) is a main contributor to the proton range uncertainty. To minimize their impact on beam range errors and quantify their uncertainties, the currently used I-values proposed in 1982 are revisited. The study aims at proposing a new set of optimized elemental I-values for use with the Bragg additivity rule (BAR) and establishing uncertainties on the optimized I-values and the BAR. We optimize elemental I-values for the use in compounds based on measured material I-values. We gain a new set of elemental I-values and corresponding uncertainties, based on the experimental uncertainties and our uncertainty model. We evaluate uncertainties on I-values and relative stopping powers (RSP) of 70 human tissues, taking into account statistical correlations between tissues and water. The effect of new I-values on proton beam ranges is quantified using Monte Carlo simulations. Our elemental I-values describe measured material I-values with higher accuracy than ICRU-recommended I-values (RMSE: 6.17% (ICRU), 5.19% (this work)). Our uncertainty model estimates an uncertainty component from the BAR to 4.42%. Using our elemental I-values, we calculate the I-value of water as 78.73 ± 2.89 eV, being consistent with ICRU 90 (78 ± 2 eV). We observe uncertainties on tissue I-values between 1.82-3.38 eV, and RSP uncertainties between 0.002%-0.44%. With transport simulations of a proton beam in human tissues, we observe range uncertainties between 0.31% and 0.47%, as compared to current estimates of 1.5%. We propose a set of elemental I-values well suited for human tissues in combination with the BAR. Our model establishes uncertainties on elemental I-values and the BAR, enabling to quantify uncertainties on tissue I-values, RSP as well as particle range. This work is particularly relevant for Monte Carlo simulations where the interaction probabilities are reconstructed from elemental compositions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".