ArticleArXiv2026
A novel Boltzmann equation solver for calculation of dose and fluence spectra distributions for proton beam therapy.
Article in ArXiv, 2026. 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The claim that Monte Carlo is the most accurate method is a case of misattributed credit. This claim is based on experience with advanced systems MC-NPX, Geant4 and EGS. These systems achieve remarkable performance because they use most accurate physics, not because they use random numbers. The latter simplifies algorithms, but contaminates the solution with random noise. Currently prevalent fast Monte Carlo algorithms retain this worst part while achieving high computing speed at the expense of the best part - accurate physics. We employ an opposite strategy. We develop a Boltzmann solver for protons that retains unchanged the physics of most advanced Monte Carlo systems. We eliminate random noise, because our solution method is deterministic. Our method is also applicable to heavier ions, helium and carbon, for example. Purpose: To develop a fast and accurate deterministic Boltzmann solver for protons. It calculates dose distributions and fluence spectra. The spectra are needed for biological modelling. The main application is treatment planning of proton beam therapy. Methods: We solve the Boltzmann transport equation using an iterative procedure. Our algorithm accounts for Coulomb scattering and nuclear reactions. It uses the same physical models, as do the most rigorous Monte Carlo systems. Thereby it achieves the same low level of systematic errors. Our solver does not involve random sampling. The solution is not contaminated by statistical noise. This means that the overall uncertainties of our solver are lower than those realistically achievable with Monte Carlo. Furthermore, our solver is orders of magnitude faster. Its another advantage is that it calculates fluence spectra. They are needed for calculation of relative biological effectiveness, especially when advanced radiobiological models are used that may present a challenge for other algorithms. Results: We have developed a novel Boltzmann equation solver, have written prototype software, and completed its testing for calculations in water. For 40-220 MeV protons we calculated fluence spectra, depth doses, three-dimensional dose distributions for narrow Gaussian beams. The CPU time was 5-11 ms for depth doses and fluence spectra at multiple depths. Gaussian beam calculations took 31-78 ms. All the calculations were run on a single Intel i7 2.9 GHz CPU. Comparison of our solver with Geant4 showed good agreement for all energies and depths. For the 1%/1 mm Conclusions: Results of the study provide a foundation for achieving a high computing speed with uncompromised accuracy in proton treatment planning systems.
Identifiers
41503094PMC12772697What 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.