Benchmarking of Monte Carlo model of Siemens Oncor <sup>®</sup> linear accelerator for 18MV photon beam: Determination of initial electron beam parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to benchmark a Monte Carlo (MC) model of the 18 MV photon beam produced by the Siemens Oncor® linac using the BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc codes. METHODS: By matching the percentage depth doses and beam profiles calculated by MC simulations with measurements, the initial electron beam parameters including electron energy, full width at half maximum (spatial FWHM), and mean angular spread were derived for the 10×10 cm2 and 20×20 cm2 field sizes. The MC model of the 18 MV photon beam was then validated against the measurements for different field sizes (5×5, 30×30 and 40×40 cm2) by gamma index analysis. RESULTS: The optimum values for electron energy, spatial FWHM and mean angular spread were 14.2 MeV, 0.08 cm and 0.8 degree, respectively. The MC simulations yielded the comparable measurement results of these optimum parameters. The gamma passing rates (with acceptance criteria of 1% /1 mm) for percentage depth doses were found to be 100% for all field sizes. For cross-line profiles, the gamma passing rates were 100%, 97%, 95%, 96% and 95% for 5×5, 10×10, 20×20, 30×30 and 40×40 cm2 field sizes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: By validation of the MC model of Siemens Oncor® linac using various field sizes, it was found that both dose profiles of small and large field sizes were very sensitive to the changes in spatial FWHM and mean angular spread of the primary electron beam from the bending magnet. Hence, it is recommended that both small and large field sizes of the 18 MV photon beams should be considered in the Monte Carlo linac modeling.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".