SU‐E‐T‐592: OSL Response of Al2O3:C Detectors Exposed to Therapeutic Proton Beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To characterize the response of Al2O3:C optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) detectors (OSLDs) exposed to therapeutic proton beams of differing beam quality. Methods: We prepared Al2O3:C OSLDs from the same material as commercially available nanoDot dosimeters (Landauer, Inc). We irradiated the OSLDs in modulated proton beams of varying quality, as defined by the residual range. An absorbed dose to water of 0.2 Gy was delivered to all OSLDs with the residual range values varying from 0.5 to 23.5 cm (average LET in water from ∼0.5 to 2.5 keV/µm). To investigate the beam quality dependence of different emission bands within the OSL spectrum, we performed OSLD readouts using both continuous‐wave stimulation (CW‐OSL) and pulsed stimulation (P‐OSL) with two sets of optical filters (Hoya U‐340 and Kopp 5113). For all readout modes, the relative absorbed dose sensitivity (Srel) for each beam quality was calculated using OSLDs irradiated in a 6 MV photon beam as a reference. Results: We found that the relative absorbed dose sensitivity was highly dependent on both readout mode and integration time of the OSL signal. For CW‐OSL signals containing only the blue emission band, Srel was between 0.85 and 0.94 for 1 s readouts and between 0.82 and 0.93 for 10 s readouts. Similarly, for P‐OSL readouts containing only the blue emission band Srel ranged from 0.86 to 0.91, and 0.82 to 0.93 for 1 s and 10 s readouts, respectively. For OSLD signals containing only the UV emission band, Srel ranged from 1.00 to 1.46, and 0.97 to 1.30 for P‐OSL readouts of 1 s and 10 s, respectively. Conclusion: For measurements of absorbed dose using Al2O3:C OSLDs in therapeutic proton beams, dependence on beam quality was smallest for readout protocols that selected the blue emission band with small integration times. DA Granville received financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".