MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911173078 · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/aafd44

Monte Carlo investigation of sub-millimeter range verification in carbon ion radiation therapy using interaction vertex imaging

2019· article· en· W2911173078 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Physics & Engineering Express · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodMillimeterIonRange (aeronautics)RadiationMaterials sciencePhysicsComputational physicsOpticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In hadrontherapy, particularly carbon ion radiation therapy, a characteristic dose distribution precisely delivers maximum dose at the beam endpoint, or Bragg peak, with relatively low dose to the surrounding tissue. As the position of the Bragg peak is highly dependent on patient anatomy and physiology, precise range verification techniques are needed to ensure that the prescribed dose is properly targeted to tumours while sparing healthy tissue. We simulated treatments of a homogeneous phantom using Geant4, and applied a novel Interaction Vertex Imaging (IVI) reconstruction, combining single-particle reconstruction with a coincidence technique, and using a software filter to reduce uncertainty introduced by straggling and multiple scattering in the target. Interaction vertices generated by the most precise Triangulation IVI method were localized to an average of 3.5 mm from the true position of the reaction, simulating a realistic charged particle detection system. No event-by-event information from a beam tracking detector was used in reconstruction. Filtered longitudinal vertex distributions were fit to logistic functions, characterizing the distal edge closest to the Bragg peak. Comparing the position of this distal edge between simulations allowed us to accurately determine if two treatments correctly targeted the same depth. After performing a linear calibration, the depth difference between two treatments could be determined with sub-millimeter precision under clinical conditions (10 6 –10 7 incident 12 C ions), allowing range verification to be performed for each depth setting in a pencil beam scanned treatment plan.

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.

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 score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · 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