A probabilistic approach for determining Monte Carlo beam source parameters: II. Impact of beam modeling uncertainties on dosimetric functions and treatment plans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. The Monte Carlo method is recognized as a valid approach for the evaluation of dosimetric functions for clinical use. This procedure requires the accurate modeling of the considered linear accelerator. In Part I, we propose a new method to extract the probability density function of the beam model physical parameters. The aim of this work is to evaluate the impact of beam modeling uncertainties on Monte Carlo evaluated dosimetric functions and treatment plans in the context of small fields. Approach. Simulations of output factors, output correction factors, dose profiles, percent-depth doses and treatment plans are performed using the CyberKnife M6 model developed in Part I. The optimized pair of electron beam energy and spot size, and eight additional pairs of beam parameters representing a 95% confidence region are used to propagate the uncertainties associated to the source parameters to the dosimetric functions. Main results. For output factors, the impact of beam modeling uncertainties increases with the reduction of the field size and confidence interval half widths reach 1.8% for the 5 mm collimator. The impact on output correction factors cancels in part, leading to a maximum confidence interval half width of 0.44%. The impact is less significant for percent-depth doses in comparison to dose profiles. For these types of measurement, in absolute terms and in comparison to the reference dose, confidence interval half widths less than or equal to 1.4% are observed. For simulated treatment plans, the impact is more significant for the treatment delivered with a smaller field size with confidence interval half widths reaching 2.5% and 1.4% for the 5 and 20 mm collimators, respectively. Significance. Results confirm that AAPM TG-157's tolerances cannot apply to the field sizes studied. This study provides an insight on the reachable dose calculation accuracy in a clinical setup.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".