Correcting scan‐to‐scan response variability for a radiochromic film‐based reference dosimetry system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In radiochromic film dosimetry systems, measurements are usually obtained from film images acquired on a CCD-based flatbed scanner. The authors investigated factors affecting scan-to-scan response variability leading to increased dose measurement uncertainty. METHODS: The authors used flatbed document scanners to repetitively scan EBT3 radiochromic films exposed to doses 0-1000 cGy, together with three neutral density filters and three blue optical filters. Scanning was performed under two conditions: scanner lid closed and scanner lid opened/closed between scans. The authors also placed a scanner in a cold room at 9 °C and later in a room at 22 °C and scanned EBT3 films to explore temperature effects. Finally, the authors investigated the effect of altering the distance between the film and the scanner's light source. RESULTS: Using a measurement protocol to isolate the contribution of the CCD and electronic circuitry of the scanners, the authors found that the standard deviation of response measurements for the EBT3 film model was about 0.17% for one scanner and 0.09% for the second. When the lid of the first scanner was opened and closed between scans, the average scan-to-scan difference of responses increased from 0.12% to 0.27%. Increasing the sample temperature during scanning changed the RGB response values by about -0.17, -0.14, and -0.05%/°C, respectively. Reducing the film-to-light source distance increased the RBG response values about 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4%/mm, respectively. The authors observed that films and film samples were often not flat with some areas up to 8 mm away from the scanner's glass window. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of measures to deal with the response irregularities, each factor the authors investigated could lead to dose uncertainty >2%. Those factors related to the film-to-light source distance could be particularly impactful since the authors observed many instances where the curl of film samples had the potential to cause dose uncertainty in excess of 5%. Two expedients will eliminate the uncertainties: a transparent sheet (preferably glass) placed over the scanned film keeps the film-to-light source distance constant, and an EBT3 reference film included in all scans provides correction factors for measured response values.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".