Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40442938›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2025

Experimental validation of Geant4 nuclear interaction models in dose calculations of therapeutic carbon ion beams.

Yihan Jia, Martina Favaretto, Lisa Hartl, Markus Stock, Dietmar Georg, Loïc Grevillot, Andreas F Resch

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Yihan JiaMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Martina FavarettoMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Lisa HartlMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Markus StockMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Dietmar GeorgMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Loïc GrevillotMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Andreas F ReschMedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.

Funding

European Regional Development Fund WST3-F-5033232/002-2020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe choice of nuclear interaction models in Monte Carlo simulations affects the dose calculation accuracy for light ion beam therapy. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the dose calculation accuracy and simulation time of three GATE-RTiON/Geant4 physics lists for therapeutic carbon ion beams, assessing their suitability for independent dose calculation in patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA).

methodsThe normalized beam models for physics lists QGSP_BIC_HP_EMZ, QGSP_INCLXX_HP_EMZ, and Shielding_EMZ were validated against measurements regarding the accuracy of range, spot size and reference dose. Normalized transversal dose profiles (

resultsThe three physics lists with validated beam models showed similar accuracy in

conclusionsQGSP_INCLXX_HP demonstrated high dosimetric accuracy in the target region of energy-modulated fields. QGSP_BIC_HP and Shielding showed physics model-related inaccuracies in simulated target dose. Additional

Indexed as

Heavy Ion RadiotherapyMonte Carlo MethodRadiation DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedHumansRadiotherapy Dosagecarbon ion radiotherapydosimetric accuracyGATE‐RTiONGeant4

Identifiers

PMID40442938
PMCPMC12258006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.