Reference dosimetry using radiochromic film
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study are to identify and quantify factors that influence radiochromic film dose response and to determine whether such films are suitable for reference dosimetry. The influence of several parameters that may introduce systematic dose errors when performing reference dose measurements were investigated. The effect of the film storage temperature was determined by comparing the performance of three lots of GAFCHROMIC EBT2 films stored at either 4ºC or room temperature. The effect of high (> 80%) or low (< 20%) relative humidity was also determined. Doses measured in optimal conditions with EBT and EBT2 films were then compared with an A12 ionization chamber measurement. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality controls using EBT2 films were also performed in reference dose. The results obtained using reference dose measurements were compared with those obtained using relative dose measurements. Storing the film at 4ºC improves the stability of the film over time, but does not eliminate the noncatalytic film development, seen as a rise in optical density over time in the absence of radiation. Relative humidity variations ranging from 80% to 20% have a strong impact on the optical density and could introduce dose errors of up to 15% if the humidity were not controlled during the film storage period. During the scanning procedure, the film temperature influences the optical density that is measured. When controlling for these three parameters, the dose differences between EBT or EBT2 and the A12 chamber are found to be within ± 4% (2σ level) over a dose range of 20-350 cGy. Our results also demonstrate the limitation of the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm for dose calculation of highly modulated treatment plans.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".