SU‐E‐T‐222: Computational Optimization of Monte Carlo Simulation On 4D Treatment Planning Using the Cloud Computing Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the efficiency of 4D lung radiation treatment planning using Monte Carlo simulation on the cloud. The EGSnrc Monte Carlo code was used in dose calculation on the 4D‐CT image set. Methods: 4D lung radiation treatment plan was created by the DOSCTP linked to the cloud, based on the Amazon elastic compute cloud platform. Dose calculation was carried out by Monte Carlo simulation on the 4D‐CT image set on the cloud, and results were sent to the FFD4D image deformation program for dose reconstruction. The dependence of computing time for treatment plan on the number of compute node was optimized with variations of the number of CT image set in the breathing cycle and dose reconstruction time of the FFD4D. Results: It is found that the dependence of computing time on the number of compute node was affected by the diminishing return of the number of node used in Monte Carlo simulation. Moreover, the performance of the 4D treatment planning could be optimized by using smaller than 10 compute nodes on the cloud. The effects of the number of image set and dose reconstruction time on the dependence of computing time on the number of node were not significant, as more than 15 compute nodes were used in Monte Carlo simulations. Conclusion: The issue of long computing time in 4D treatment plan, requiring Monte Carlo dose calculations in all CT image sets in the breathing cycle, can be solved using the cloud computing technology. It is concluded that the optimized number of compute node selected in simulation should be between 5 and 15, as the dependence of computing time on the number of node is significant.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".