MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1426925482 · doi:10.1118/1.4923791

SU‐C‐304‐03: Experimental Investigation On the Accuracy of Plastic Scintillation Dosimeters in Small Fields

2015· article· en· W1426925482 on OpenAlexaff
Pavlos Papaconstadopoulos, L Archambault, Jan Seuntjens

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHôtel-Dieu de QuébecMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimeterCalibrationScintillationOpticsMonte Carlo methodPhysicsDosimetryTruebeamSpectrometerMaterials scienceRange (aeronautics)RadiationDetectorComputational physicsLinear particle acceleratorNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To investigate the accuracy of the Exradin W1 (SI) and of an “in‐house” plastic scintillation dosimeter (CHUQ PSD) in small radiation fields. Methods: Output factor (OF) measurements with the W1 and CHUQ PSD were performed for field sizes of 0.5 × 0.5, 1 × 1 and 2 × 2 cm2. Both detectors were placed parallel to the central axis (CAX) in water. The spectrum discrimination calibration method was performed in each set‐up to account for the Cerenkov (CRV) signal created in the fiber. The OFs were compared to the expected field factors in water derived using i) Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of an accurate accelerator model and ii) microLion (PTW) and D1V diode (SI) OFs. MC‐derived correction factors were applied to both the microLion and D1V OFs. For the CHUQ PSD the calibration was repeated in water (// CAX), solid water (perpendicular to CAX) and under a shielded configuration. The signal was collected using a spectrometer (wavelength range = 185–1100 nm). Spectral analysis was performed to evaluate potential changes of the spectral distributions under the various calibration set‐up configurations. Results: The W1 OFs presented an over‐response for the 0.5 × 0.5 cm2 in the range of 3 – 4.1% relative to the expected field factor. The CHUQ PSD presented an under‐response in the range of 1.5 – 2.7%, without accounting for volume averaging. The CRV spectra under the various calibration procedures appeared similar to each other and only minor changes were observed to the respective OFs. Conclusion: The W1 and CHUQ PSD can be used in small fields down to a 1 × 1 cm2 field size. Discrepancies were encountered between the two detectors for the smallest field size of 0.5 × 0.5 cm2 with the CHUQ PSD exhibiting a closer agreement to the expected field factor. Funding sources: 1) Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation in Greece and 2) CREATE Medical Physics Research Training Network grant of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Grant number: 432290, RGPIN‐2014‐06475

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→