{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018268467037331215, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005559968228752979, 'mean_word_length': 5.206896551724138, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of MCNP4C and EGSnrc Monte Carlo codes in depth-dose calculation of low energy clinical electron beams

Comparison of different Monte Carlo codes for understanding their limitations is essential to avoid systematic errors in the simulation, and to suggest further improvement for the codes. MCNP4C and EGSnrc, two Monte Carlo codes commonly used in medical physics, were compared and evaluated against electron depth-dose data and experimental results obtained using clinical radiotherapy beams. Different physical models and algorithms used in the codes give significantly different depth-dose curves. The default version of MCNP4C calculates electron depth-dose curves which are too much penetrating. The MCNP4C results agree better with the experiment if the Integrated Tiger Series-style energy-indexing algorithm is used. EGSnrc uses a class II-Condensed History (CH) scheme for the simulation of electron transport. To conclude the comparison, a timing study was performed. It was noted that EGSnrc is generally faster than MCNP4C and the use of a large number of scoring voxels dramatically slows down the MCNP4C calculation. However, the use of a large number of geometry voxels in MCNP4C only slightly affects the speed of the calculation.