Feasibility of a multigroup Boltzmann–Fokker–Planck solution for electron beam dose calculations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legacy nuclear-reactor Boltzmann solvers start clinical deployment as an alternative to Monte Carlo (MC) codes and Fermi-Eyges semiemprical models in radiation oncology treatment planning. Today's certified clinical solvers are limited to photon beams. In this paper, ELECTR, a state-of-the-art multigroup electron cross sections generation module in NJOY is presented and validated against Lockwood's calorimetric measurements, EGS-nrc and GEANT-4 for 1-20 MeV unidirectional electron beams. The nuclear-reactor DRAGON-5 solver is upgraded to access the library and solve the Boltzmann-Fokker-Planck (BFP) equation. A variety of heterogeneous radiotherapy and radiosurgery phantom configurations were used for validation purpose. Case studies include a thorax benchmark, that of a typical breast Intra-Operative Radiotherapy and a high-heterogeneity patient-like benchmark. For all beams, [Formula: see text] of the water voxels satisfied the American Association of Physicists in Medicine accuracy criterion for a BFP-MC dose error below [Formula: see text]. At least, [Formula: see text] of adipose, muscle, bone, lung, tumor and breast voxels satisfied the [Formula: see text] criterion. The average BFP-MC relative error was about [Formula: see text] for all voxels, beams and materials combined. By irradiating homogeneous slabs from [Formula: see text] (hydrogen) to [Formula: see text] (einsteinium), we reported performance and defects of the CEPXS mode [US. Sandia National Lab., SAND-89-1685] in ELECTR for the entire periodic table. For all Lockwood's benchmarks, NJOY-DRAGON dose predictions are within the experimental data precision for [Formula: see text] of voxels.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".