Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32392626›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2021

Report on G4-Med, a Geant4 benchmarking system for medical physics applications developed by the Geant4 Medical Simulation Benchmarking Group.

P Arce, D Bolst, M-C Bordage, J M C Brown, P Cirrone, M A Cortés-Giraldo, D Cutajar, G Cuttone, L Desorgher, P Dondero and 30 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. An interface tool to parametrize treatment plans for the TrueBeam radiotherapy system into TOPAS parameter control files for Monte Carlo simulation.Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Validation of the DoseCalcs Monte Carlo code for estimating theRadiological physics and technology · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

40 authors.

P ArceCIEMAT, Madrid, Spain.
D BolstCentre For Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
M-C BordageCRCT (INSERM and Paul Sabatier University), Toulouse, France.
J M C BrownDepartment of Radiation Science and Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
P CirroneINFN LNS, Catania, Italy.
M A Cortés-GiraldoUniversidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain.
D CutajarCentre For Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
G CuttoneINFN LNS, Catania, Italy.
L DesorgherInstitute of Radiation Physics (IRA), Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
P DonderoSWHARD srl, Genova, Italy.
A DottiSLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford, CA, USA.
B FaddegonUniversity of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
C FedonRadboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
S GuatelliCentre For Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
S IncertiUniversité de Bordeaux, CNRS/IN2P3, UMR5797, Centre d'Études Nucléaires de Bordeaux Gradignan, Gradignan, France.
V IvanchenkoTomsk State University, Tomsk, Russian Federation.
D KonstantinovNRC "Kurchatov Institute" - IHEP, Protvino, Russian Federation.
I KyriakouMedical Physics Laboratory, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
G LatyshevNRC "Kurchatov Institute" - IHEP, Protvino, Russian Federation.
A LeCentre For Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
C Mancini-TerraccianoPhysics Dep., University of Rome "Sapienza" and INFN, Sec. of Rome, Rome, Italy.
M MaireLAPP, IN2P3, Annecy, France.
A ManteroSWHARD srl, Genova, Italy.
M NovakCERN, Geneva, Switzerland.
C OmachiNagoya Proton Therapy Center, Nagoya, Japan.
L PandolaINFN LNS, Catania, Italy.
A PeralesMedical Physics Department of Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Y PerrotIRSN, Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.
G PetringaINFN LNS, Catania, Italy.
J M QuesadaUniversidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain.
J Ramos-MéndezUniversity of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
F RomanoINFN Catania Section, Catania, Italy.
A B RosenfeldCentre For Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
L G SarmientoLund University, Lund, Sweden.
D SakataCentre For Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
T SasakiKEK, Tsukuba, Japan.
I SechopoulosRadboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
E C SimpsonDepartment of Nuclear Physics, Research School of Physics, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
T ToshitoNagoya Proton Therapy Center, Nagoya, Japan.
D H WrightSLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

The TOPAS Tool for Particle Simulation, a Monte Carlo Simulation Tool for Physics, Biology and Clinical ResearchU24CA215123 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI FADDEGON, BRUCE · 2018 to 2022
$4.2M
Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship 000Australian Research Council DP170100967Australian Research Council DP170102423European Space Agency 4000126645/19/NL/BWNCI NIH HHS U24 CA215123NIH HHS U24CA215123Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness FPA2016-77689-C2-1-RSusan G Komen Foundation IIR13262248
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeant4 is a Monte Carlo code extensively used in medical physics for a wide range of applications, such as dosimetry, micro- and nanodosimetry, imaging, radiation protection, and nuclear medicine. Geant4 is continuously evolving, so it is crucial to have a system that benchmarks this Monte Carlo code for medical physics against reference data and to perform regression testing.

aimsTo respond to these needs, we developed G4-Med, a benchmarking and regression testing system of Geant4 for medical physics. MATERIALS AND

methodsG4-Med currently includes 18 tests. They range from the benchmarking of fundamental physics quantities to the testing of Monte Carlo simulation setups typical of medical physics applications. Both electromagnetic and hadronic physics processes and models within the prebuilt Geant4 physics lists are tested. The tests included in G4-Med are executed on the CERN computing infrastructure via the use of the geant-val web application, developed at CERN for Geant4 testing. The physical observables can be compared to reference data for benchmarking and to results of previous Geant4 versions for regression testing purposes.

resultsThis paper describes the tests included in G4-Med and shows the results derived from the benchmarking of Geant4 10.5 against reference data. DISCUSSION: Our results indicate that the Geant4 electromagnetic physics constructor G4EmStandardPhysics_option4 gives a good agreement with the reference data for all the tests. The QGSP_BIC_HP physics list provided an overall adequate description of the physics involved in hadron therapy, including proton and carbon ion therapy. New tests should be included in the next stage of the project to extend the benchmarking to other physical quantities and application scenarios of interest for medical physics.

conclusionThe results presented and discussed in this paper will aid users in tailoring physics lists to their particular application.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingPhysicsRadiometryComputer SimulationMonte Carlo MethodbenchmarkingGeant4medical physicsMonte Carlo

Identifiers

PMID32392626
PMCPMC8054528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.