ArticleJournal of medical signals and sensors
Sensitivity Analysis of a 6 MeV Photon Beam Monte Carlo Model.
Article in Journal of medical signals and sensors. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to optimize efficiency in Monte Carlo (MC) simulation using sensitivity analysis of a beam model. Methods: The BEAMnrc-based model of 6 MV beam of a Siemens Primus linac was developed. For sensitivity analysis, the effect of the electron source, treatment head, and virtual phantom specifications on calculated percent depth dose (PDD) and lateral dose profiles was evaluated. Results: The optimum mean energy (E) and the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the intensity distribution of the electron beam were calculated as 6.7 MeV and 3 mm, respectively. Increasing E from 6.1 to 6.7 MeV, increased the PDD in the fall-off region by 4.70% and decreased the lateral profile by 8.76%. Changing the FWHM had a significant effect on the buildup region of PDD and the horns and out-of-field regions of the lateral profile. Increasing the collimators opening by 0.5 mm, PDD increased by 2.13% and the central and penumbra regions of profiles decreased by 1.98% and 11.40% respectively. Collimator properties such as thickness and density were effective in changing the penumbra (11.32% for 0.25 cm increment) and the out-of-field (22.82% for 3 g/cm Conclusion: Analysis of a 6 MV model showed that PDD profiles were more sensitive to changes in energy than to FWHM of the electron source. The lateral profiles were sensitive to E, FWHM, and collimator opening. The density of the collimator affected only the out-of-field region of lateral profiles. The findings of this study may be used to make benchmarking of an MC beam model more efficient.
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.