MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892233420 · doi:10.1017/s1460396918000407

Penumbra width determination of single beam and 201 beams of Gamma Knife machine model 4C using Monte Carlo simulation

2018· article· en· W2892233420 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Atefeh Mahmoudi, Alireza Shirazi, Ghazale Geraily, Tahereh Hadisi nia, Masoume Bakhshi, Maryam Maleki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Radiotherapy in Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTehran University of Medical Sciences and Health ServicesNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Tehran
KeywordsPenumbraCollimatorMonte Carlo methodRadiosurgeryImaging phantomBeam (structure)DosimetryNuclear medicineGamma knifePhysicsOpticsMathematicsMedicineRadiation therapyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background One of the stereotactic radiosurgery techniques is Gamma Knife radiosurgery, in which intracranial lesions that are inaccessible or inappropriate for surgery are treated using 201 cobalt-60 sources in one treatment session. In this conformal technique, the penumbra width, which results in out-of-field dose in tumour-adjacent normal tissues should be determined accurately. The aim of this study is to calculate the penumbra widths of single and 201 beams for different collimator sizes of Gamma Knife machine model 4C using EGSnrc/BEAMnrc Monte Carlo simulation code and comparison the results with EBT3 film dosimetry data. Methods and materials In this study, simulation of Gamma Knife machine model 4C was performed based on the Monte Carlo codes of EGSnrc/BEAMnrc. To investigate the physical penumbra width (80−20%), the single beam and 201 beams profiles were obtained using EGSnrc/DOSXYZnrc code and EBT3 films located at isocentre point in a spherical Plexiglas head phantom. Results Based on the results, the single beam penumbra widths obtained from simulation data for 4, 8, 14 and 18 mm collimator sizes along X axis were 0·75, 0·77, 0·90 and 0·92 mm, respectively. The data for 201 beams obtained from simulation were 2·61, 4·80, 7·92 and 9·81 mm along X axis and 1·31, 1·60, 1·91 and 2·14 mm along Z axis and from film dosimetry were 3·21, 4·90, 8·00 and 10·61 mm along X axis and 1·22, 1·69, 2·01 and 2·25 mm along Z axis, respectively. Conclusion The differences between measured and simulated penumbra widths are in an acceptable range. However, for more precise measurement in the penumbra region in which dose gradient is high, Monte Carlo simulation is recommended.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Radiotherapy in PracticeSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207