MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902667326 · doi:10.1002/mp.13309

Proton beam behavior in a parallel configured <scp>MRI</scp>‐proton therapy hybrid: Effects of time‐varying gradient magnetic fields

2018· article· en· W2902667326 on OpenAlexaff
D. M. Santos, Keith Wachowicz, B Burke, B. G. Fallone

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProton therapyProtonPhysicsMagnetic resonance imagingMagnetic fieldMonte Carlo methodMagnetNuclear magnetic resonanceBeam (structure)Electromagnetic coilMagnetostaticsComputational physicsOpticsNuclear physicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Real‐time magnetic resonance (MR) guidance is of interest to various groups globally because the superior soft tissue contrast MR images offer over other x‐ray‐based imaging modalities. Because of the precision required in proton therapy, proton therapy treatments rely heavily on image guidance. Integrating a magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) into a proton therapy treatment is a challenge. The charged particles (protons) used in proton therapy experience magnetic forces when travelling through the MRI magnetic fields. Given that it is desired that proton beams can be delivered with submillimeter accuracy, it is important that all potential sources of beam displacement are well modeled and understood. This study investigated the behavior of monoenergetic proton beams in the presence of a simulated set of realistic three‐dimensional (3D) vector magnetic gradient fields required for spatial localization during imaging. This deflecting source has not been previously investigated. Methods Three‐dimensional magnetic vector fields from a superconducting 0.5 T open bore MRI magnet model (previously developed in‐house) and 3D magnetic fields from an in‐house gradient coil model were applied to two types of computer simulations. In all simulations, monoenergetic proton pencil beams (from 80 to 250 MeV) were used. The initial directions of proton beams were varied. In all simulations, the orientation of the B 0 field coincided with the positive z‐axis in the simulation geometry. The first type of simulation is based on an analytic magnetic force equation (analytic simulations) while the second type is a full Monte Carlo ( MC ) simulation. The analytic simulations were limited to propagating the proton beams in vacuum but could be rapidly calculated in a desktop computer while the MC simulations were calculated in a cluster computer. The proton beam locations and dose profiles at the central plane (z = 0 cm) with or without magnetic fields were extracted and used to quantify the effect of the presence of the different magnetic fields on the proton beam. Results The analytic simulations agree with MC results within 0.025 mm, thus acting as the verification of MC calculations. The presence of the B 0 field caused the beam to follow a helical trajectory which resulted in angular offsets of 4.9 o , 3.6 o , and 2.8 o for the 80, 150, and 250 MeV, respectively. Magnetic field deflections caused by a rapid MRI sequence ( bSSFP , with maximum gradient strength of 40 mT /m) show a pattern of distortion which remained spatially invariant in the MR 's field of view. For the 80 MeV beam, this pattern shows a maximum ranged in the y direction of 1.5 mm. The presence of the B 0 field during the bSSFP simulations adds the same beam rotation to the observed during the B 0 only simulations. Conclusion This investigation reveals that time‐varying gradient magnetic fields required for image generation can cause a small spread in the proton beams used in the study which are independent of the effects arising from the B 0 field. Further, studies where clinical beam kernels were convolved with this spread show that these magnetic fields are expected to have an insignificant impact on the beam's entrance dose.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207