MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1598941501 · doi:10.1118/1.4919280

A revised dosimetric characterization of the model S700 electronic brachytherapy source containing an anode-centering plastic insert and other components not included in the 2006 model

2015· article· en· W1598941501 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica R. Hiatt, Stephen Davis, Mark J. Rivard

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrachytherapyDosimetryImaging phantomMonte Carlo methodKermaMaterials sciencePhysicsOpticsComputational physicsMedical physicsNuclear medicineRadiation therapyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The model S700 Axxent electronic brachytherapy source by Xoft, Inc., was characterized by Rivard et al. in 2006. Since then, the source design was modified to include a new insert at the source tip. Current study objectives were to establish an accurate source model for simulation purposes, dosimetrically characterize the new source and obtain its TG-43 brachytherapy dosimetry parameters, and determine dose differences between the original simulation model and the current model S700 source design. METHODS: Design information from measurements of dissected model S700 sources and from vendor-supplied CAD drawings was used to aid establishment of an updated Monte Carlo source model, which included the complex-shaped plastic source-centering insert intended to promote water flow for cooling the source anode. These data were used to create a model for subsequent radiation transport simulations in a water phantom. Compared to the 2006 simulation geometry, the influence of volume averaging close to the source was substantially reduced. A track-length estimator was used to evaluate collision kerma as a function of radial distance and polar angle for determination of TG-43 dosimetry parameters. Results for the 50 kV source were determined every 0.1 cm from 0.3 to 15 cm and every 1° from 0° to 180°. Photon spectra in water with 0.1 keV resolution were also obtained from 0.5 to 15 cm and polar angles from 0° to 165°. Simulations were run for 10(10) histories, resulting in statistical uncertainties on the transverse plane of 0.04% at r = 1 cm and 0.06% at r = 5 cm. RESULTS: The dose-rate distribution ratio for the model S700 source as compared to the 2006 model exceeded unity by more than 5% for roughly one quarter of the solid angle surrounding the source, i.e., θ ≥ 120°. The radial dose function diminished in a similar manner as for an (125)I seed, with values of 1.434, 0.636, 0.283, and 0.0975 at 0.5, 2, 5, and 10 cm, respectively. The radial dose function ratio between the current and the 2006 model had a minimum of 0.980 at 0.4 cm, close to the source sheath and for large distances approached 1.014. 2D anisotropy function ratios were close to unity for 50° ≤ θ ≤ 110°, but exceeded 5% for θ < 40° at close distances to the sheath and exceeded 15% for θ > 140°, even at large distances. Photon energy fluence of the updated model as compared to the 2006 model showed a decrease in output with increasing distance; this effect was pronounced at the lowest energies. A decrease in photon fluence with increase in polar angle was also observed and was attributed to the silver epoxy component. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in source design influenced the overall dose rate and distribution by more than 2% in several regions. This discrepancy is greater than the dose calculation acceptance criteria as recommended in the AAPM TG-56 report. The effect of the design change on the TG-43 parameters would likely not result in dose differences outside of patient applicators. Adoption of this new dataset is suggested for accurate depiction of model S700 source dose distributions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207