A tri-hybrid method to estimate the patient-generated scattered photon fluence components to the EPID image plane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In vivo dosimetry methods can verify the prescription dose is delivered to the patient during treatment. Unfortunately, in exit dosimetry, the megavoltage image is contaminated with patient-generated scattered photons. However, estimation and removal of the effect of this fluence improves accuracy of in vivo dosimetry methods. This work develops a ‘tri-hybrid’ algorithm combining analytical, Monte Carlo (MC) and pencil-beam scatter kernel methods to provide accurate estimates of the total patient-generated scattered photon fluence entering the MV imager. For the multiply-scattered photon fluence, a modified MC simulation method was applied, using only a few histories. From each second- and higher-order interaction site in the simulation, energy fluence entering all pixels of the imager was calculated using analytical methods. For photon fluence generated by electron interactions in the patient (i.e. bremsstrahlung and positron annihilation), a convolution/superposition approach was employed using pencil-beam scatter fluence kernels as a function of patient thickness and air gap distance, superposed on the incident fluence distribution. The total patient-scattered photon fluence entering the imager was compared with a corresponding full MC simulation (EGSnrc) for several test cases. These included three geometric phantoms (water, half-water/half-lung, computed tomography thorax) using monoenergetic (1.5, 5.5 and 12.5 MeV) and polyenergetic (6 and 18 MV) photon beams, 10 × 10 cm 2 field, source-to-surface distance 100 cm, source-to-imager distance 150 cm and 40 × 40 cm 2 imager. The proposed tri-hybrid method is demonstrated to agree well with full MC simulation, with the average fluence differences and standard deviations found to be within 0.5% and 1%, respectively, for test cases examined here. The method, as implemented here with a single CPU (non-parallelized), takes ∼80 s, which is considerably shorter compared to full MC simulation (∼30 h). This is a promising method for fast yet accurate calculation of patient-scattered fluence at the imaging plane for in vivo dosimetry applications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".