Beam modeling and beam model commissioning for Monte Carlo dose calculation‐based radiation therapy treatment planning: Report of AAPM Task Group 157
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dose calculation plays an important role in the accuracy of radiotherapy treatment planning and beam delivery. The Monte Carlo (MC) method is capable of achieving the highest accuracy in radiotherapy dose calculation and has been implemented in many commercial systems for radiotherapy treatment planning. The objective of this task group was to assist clinical physicists with the potentially complex task of acceptance testing and commissioning MC-based treatment planning systems (TPS) for photon and electron beam dose calculations. This report provides an overview on the general approach of clinical implementation and testing of MC-based TPS with a specific focus on models of clinical photon and electron beams. Different types of beam models are described including those that utilize MC simulation of the treatment head and those that rely on analytical methods and measurements. The trade-off between accuracy and efficiency in the various source-modeling approaches is discussed together with guidelines for acceptance testing of MC-based TPS from the clinical standpoint. Specific recommendations are given on methods and practical procedures to commission clinical beam models for MC-based TPS.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".