{
  "annotation_id": "e1e0e8cb-e1f7-4525-af45-fad512fdaafd",
  "date_created": "2026-03-02T18:00:49.897000Z",
  "date_modified": "2026-03-02T18:00:49.897000Z",
  "file_hash": "109556514ca0903e55879b644c295f2f288f4581569f1b630bf88ccabf25feb8",
  "private": false,
  "record": {
    "abstract": "The impact of field shape optimization is studied for prostate type geometry.\nFor this study, 76 and 81 Gy plans were generated. Dose distributions for\nwedged plans and Intensity Modulated (IM) plans for three and seven fields were\ncompared for a quadratic cost function. For wedged plans, a Simulated Annealing\nAlgorithm (SAA) was used to optimize gantry angles, wedge angles, beam weights\nand field shapes. Two kinds of wedged plans were generated: 1) field sizes were\ndetermined by the requirement of full target coverage in the beam\u0027s-eye-view\n(fixed fields) and 2) the field shape, in particular at the critical organ\ntarget overlap region was also among the variables optimized. For IM plans the\nSAA was used to optimize gantry angles and a conjugate gradient algorithm was\nused to optimize the IM beam fluences. Both the field shape optimized wedged\nplans and IM plans had significantly superior dose area histograms of the\ntarget, rectum and the bladder and cost function values compared to the fixed\nfield optimized wedged plans.",
    "arxiv_id": "physics/0403054",
    "authors": [
      "Moorthy Muthuswamy",
      "Yeh-Chi Lo"
    ],
    "categories": [
      "physics.med-ph"
    ],
    "title": "The impact of field shape optimization: A feasibility study",
    "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0403054"
  },
  "schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
  "source": {
    "execution_id": "dd2d28eb-cb7b-4820-9d4b-16a4b08f8f90",
    "id": "arXiv Dataset IDs",
    "type": "Model",
    "variant": "snapshot-2026-03-01",
    "version": "0.1.0"
  },
  "user_id": 1000002
}