Genuine cross-correlations: Which surrogate based measure reproduces analytical results best?

The analysis of short segments of noise-contaminated, multivariate real world data constitutes a challenge. In this paper we compare several techniques of analysis, which are supposed to correctly extract the amount of genuine cross-correlations from a multivariate data set. In order to test for the quality of their performance we derive time series from a linear test model, which allows the analytical derivation of genuine correlations. We compare the numerical estimates of the four measures with the analytical results for different correlation pattern. In the bivariate case all but one measure performs similarly well. However, in the multivariate case measures based on the eigenvalues of the equal-time cross-correlation matrix do not extract exclusively information about the amount of genuine correlations, but they rather reflect the spatial organization of the correlation pattern. This may lead to failures when interpreting the numerical results as illustrated by an application to three electroencephalographic recordings of three patients suffering from pharmacoresistent epilepsy.

Collapsed cone convolution and analytical anisotropic algorithm dose calculations compared to VMC++ Monte Carlo simulations in clinical cases

The purpose of this work was to study and quantify the differences in dose distributions computed with some of the newest dose calculation algorithms available in commercial planning systems. The study was done for clinical cases originally calculated with pencil beam convolution (PBC) where large density inhomogeneities were present. Three other dose algorithms were used: a pencil beam like algorithm, the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA), a convolution superposition algorithm, collapsed cone convolution (CCC), and a Monte Carlo program, voxel Monte Carlo (VMC++). The dose calculation algorithms were compared under static field irradiations at 6 MV and 15 MV using multileaf collimators and hard wedges where necessary. Five clinical cases were studied: three lung and two breast cases. We found that, in terms of accuracy, the CCC algorithm performed better overall than AAA compared to VMC++, but AAA remains an attractive option for routine use in the clinic due to its short computation times. Dose differences between the different algorithms and VMC++ for the median value of the planning target volume (PTV) were typically 0.4% (range: 0.0 to 1.4%) in the lung and -1.3% (range: -2.1 to -0.6%) in the breast for the few cases we analysed. As expected, PTV coverage and dose homogeneity turned out to be more critical in the lung than in the breast cases with respect to the accuracy of the dose calculation. This was observed in the dose volume histograms obtained from the Monte Carlo simulations.