Dosimetric performance of a multipoint plastic scintillator dosimeter as a tool for real‐time source tracking in high dose rate Ir brachytherapy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose This study aims to present the performance of a multipoint plastic scintillation detector (mPSD) as a tool for real‐time dose measurements (covering three orders of magnitude in dose rate), source‐position triangulation, and dwell time assessment in high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy. Methods A previously characterized and optimized three‐point sensor system was used for HDR brachytherapy measurements. The detector was composed of three scintillators: BCF60, BCF12, and BCF10. Scintillation light was transmitted through a single 1‐mm‐diameter clear optical fiber and read by a compact assembly of photomultiplier tubes (PMTs). Each component was numerically optimized to allow for signal deconvolution using a multispectral approach, taking care of the Cerenkov stem effect as well as extracting the dose from each scintillator. The PMTs were read simultaneously using a data acquisition board at a rate of 100 KHz and controlled with in‐house software based on Python. An source (Flexitron, Elekta‐Brachy) was remotely controlled and sent to various positions in a in‐house PMMA holder, ensuring 0.1 mm positional accuracy. Dose measurements covering a range of 10 cm of source movement were carried out according to TG‐43 U1 recommendations. Water measurements were performed in order to: (a) characterize the system’s response in terms of angular dependence; (b) obtain the relative contribution of positioning and measurement uncertainties to the total system uncertainty; (c) assess the system’s temporal resolution; and (d) track the source position in real time. The triangulation principle was applied to report the source position in three‐dimensional space. Results As expected, the positioning uncertainty dominated close to the source, whereas the measurement uncertainty dominated at larger distances. A maximum measurement uncertainty of 17 % was observed for the BCF60 scintillator at 10 cm from the source. Based on the uncertainty chain, the best compromises between positioning and measurement uncertainties were reached at 17.2, 17.4, and 17.5 mm for the BCF10, BCF12, and BCF60 scintillators, respectively, which also corresponded to the recommended optimal distances to the source for calibration purposes. The detector further exhibited no angular dependence. All dose values were found to be within 2% of the dose value at . In the experiments performed for source‐position determination, the system provided an average location with a standard deviation under 1.7 mm. The maximum observed differences between measured and expected values were 1.82 and 1.8 mm in the x‐ and z‐directions, respectively. Deviations between the mPSD measurements and expected TG‐43 values were below 5% in all the explored measurement conditions. With regard to dwell time measurement accuracy, the maximum deviation observed at all distances was 0.56 ± 0.25 s, with a weighted average of the three scintillators below 0.33 ± 0.37 s at all distances covered in this study. Conclusions Real‐time HDR brachytherapy measurements were performed with an optimized mPSD system. The performance of the system demonstrated that it could be used for simultaneous, in vivo, real‐time reporting of dose, dwell time, and source position during HDR brachytherapy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».