ArticleJournal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection2022
Experimental validation of proton physics models of Geant4 for calculating stopping power ratio.
Article in Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In this work, we conducted experiments to validate the proton physics models of Geant4 (version 10.6). The stopping power ratios (SPRs) of 11 inserts, such as acrylic, delrin, high density polyethylene, and polytetrafluoroethylene, etc, were measured using a superconducting synchrocyclotron that produces a scattering proton beam. The SPRs of the inserts were also calculated based on Geant4 simulation with six physics lists, i.e. QGSP_ FTFP_ BERT, QGSP_BIC_HP, QGSP_BIC, QGSP_FTFP_BERT, QSGP_BERT, and QBBC. The calculated SPRs were compared to the experimental SPRs, and relative per cent error was used to quantify the accuracy of the simulated SPRs of inserts. The comparison showed that the five physics lists generally agree well with the experimental SPRs with a relative difference of less than 1%. The lowest overall percentage error was observed for QGSP_FTFP_BERT and the highest overall percentage error was observed for QGSP_BIC_HP. The 0.1 mm range cut value consistently led to higher percentage error for all physics lists except for QGSP_BIC_HP and QBBC. Based on the validation, we recommend QGSP_BERT_HP physics list for proton dose calculation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.