MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W950132379 · doi:10.1118/1.4925096

SU‐E‐T‐732: The Effects of Calcification Modeling for Monte Carlo Dose Calculations of Low Dose Rate Prostate Brachytherapy

2015· article· en· W950132379 on OpenAlexaff
Justin Sutherland, Nelson Miksys, Paul Soubiran, Joanna Cygler, Rowan M. Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstateCalcificationProstate cancerDosimetryVoxelNuclear medicineBrachytherapyMedicineRadiologyRadiation therapyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Retrospective Monte Carlo calculations recently revealed that tissue calcifications cause significant dose perturbations in low dose rate prostate brachytherapy patients. This work investigates dose differences due to calcification modeling schemes of varying complexity for MC dose calculations. Methods: A prostate cancer patient with a large prostatic calcification (∼2.3 cm 3 ) treated with 125 I seeds was studied. MC calculations were performed using the EGSnrc user‐code BrachyDose with dose scored to medium in medium. Computational phantoms were generated from CT images acquired one month post‐implant. Tissues were assigned to voxels within structure contours based on CT number: prostate and calcification within the target, air and muscle within the rectum, urinary bladder within the bladder, and ICRU 46 soft tissue and bone in remaining voxels. Target models included: water only (TG‐43), prostate tissue with CT‐derived mass densities except for higher calcification densities over¬ridden with prostate nominal density, only prostate with unmodified CT‐derived densities, prostate and 100% calcification with CT‐derived densities (PC), and prostate and incremental mixtures of prostate and calcification with CT‐derived densities (PCmix). Results: Local dose differences of up to a factor of 3 or more were found between the various models including significant dose differences between PC and PCmix inside and adjacent to the calcification. Dose metrics differ between the models with the minimum dose that 90% of the target received (D90) differing by 4% between PC and PCmix. Adjacent to calcification, doses for calcification models were approximately 50% less than those calculated by TG‐43. D90 for calcification models was approximately 80–90% the value of that calculated by TG‐43. Conclusions: Considerable dose differences were found between calculations using various calcification modeling schemes for a low dose rate prostate brachytherapy patient with prostatic calcifications, highlighting the importance of detailed and accurate calcification modeling for MC dose calculations of these treatments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207