Development of a stand‐alone precalculated Monte Carlo code to calculate the dose by alpha and beta emitters from the Ra‐224 decay chain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent developments in alpha and beta emitting radionuclide therapy highlight the importance of developing efficient methods for patient-specific dosimetry. Traditional tabulated methods such as Medical Internal Radiation Dose (MIRD) estimate the dose at the organ level while more recent numerical methods based on Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are able to calculate dose at the voxel level. A precalculated MC (PMC) approach was developed in this work as an alternative to time-consuming fully simulated MC. Once the spatial distribution of alpha and beta emitters is determined using imaging and/or numerical methods, the PMC code can be used to achieve an accurate voxelized 3D distribution of the deposited energy without relying on full MC calculations. PURPOSE: To implement the PMC method to calculate energy deposited by alpha and beta particles emitted from the Ra-224 decay chain. METHODS: The GEANT4 (version 10.7) MC toolkit was used to generate databases of precalculated tracks to be integrated in the PMC code as well as to benchmark its output. In this regard, energy spectra of alpha and beta particles emitted by the Ra-224 decay chain were generated using GAMOS (version 6.2.0) and imported into GEANT4 macro files. Either alpha or beta emitting sources were defined at the center of a homogeneous phantom filled with various materials such as soft tissue, bone, and lung where particles were emitted either mono-directionally (for database generation) or isotropically (for benchmarking). Two heterogeneous phantoms were used to demonstrate PMC code compatibility with boundary crossing events. Each precalculated database was generated step-by-step by storing particle track information from GEANT4 simulations followed by its integration in a PMC code developed in MATLAB. For a user-defined number of histories, one of the tracks in a given database was selected randomly and rotated randomly to reflect an isotropic emission. Afterward, deposited energy was divided between voxels based on step length in each voxel using a ray-tracing approach. The radial distribution of deposited energy was benchmarked against fully simulated MC calculations using GEANT4. The effect of the GEANT4 parameter StepMax on the accuracy and speed of the code was also investigated. RESULTS: In the case of alpha decay, primary alpha particles show the highest contribution (>99%) in deposited energy compared to their secondary particles. In most cases, protons act as the main secondary particles in the deposition of energy. However, for a lung phantom, using a range cutoff parameter of 10 µm on primary alpha particles yields a higher contribution of secondary electrons than protons. Differences between deposited energy calculated by PMC and fully simulated MC are within 2% for all alpha and beta emitters in homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms. Additionally, statistical uncertainties are less than 1% for voxels with doses higher than 5% of the maximum dose. Moreover, optimization of the parameter StepMax is necessary to achieve the best tradeoff between code accuracy and speed. CONCLUSIONS: The PMC code shows good performance for dose calculations deposited by alpha and beta emitters. As a stand-alone algorithm, it is suitable to be integrated into clinical treatment planning systems.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".