Direct measurement of electron beam quality conversion factors using water calorimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this work, the authors describe an electron sealed water calorimeter (ESWcal) designed to directly measure absorbed dose to water in clinical electron beams and its use to derive electron beam quality conversion factors for two ionization chamber types. METHODS: A functioning calorimeter prototype was constructed in-house and used to obtain reproducible measurements in clinical accelerator-based 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV electron beams. Corrections for the radiation field perturbation due to the presence of the glass calorimeter vessel were calculated using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The conductive heat transfer due to dose gradients and nonwater materials was also accounted for using a commercial finite element method software package. RESULTS: The relative combined standard uncertainty on the ESWcal dose was estimated to be 0.50% for the 9-20 MeV beams and 1.00% for the 6 MeV beam, demonstrating that the development of a water calorimeter-based standard for electron beams over such a wide range of clinically relevant energies is feasible. The largest contributor to the uncertainty was the positioning (Type A, 0.10%-0.40%) and its influence on the perturbation correction (Type B, 0.10%-0.60%). As a preliminary validation, measurements performed with the ESWcal in a 6 MV photon beam were directly compared to results derived from the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) photon beam standard water calorimeter. These two independent devices were shown to agree well within the 0.43% combined relative uncertainty of the ESWcal for this beam type and quality. Absorbed dose electron beam quality conversion factors were measured using the ESWcal for the Exradin A12 and PTW Roos ionization chambers. The photon-electron conversion factor, kecal, for the A12 was also experimentally determined. Nonstatistically significant differences of up to 0.7% were found when compared to the calculation-based factors listed in the AAPM's TG-51 protocol. General agreement between the relative electron energy dependence of the PTW Roos data measured in this work and a recent MC-based study are also shown. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first time that water calorimetry has been successfully used to measure electron beam quality conversion factors for energies as low as 6 MeV (R50=2.25 cm).
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 | 0.000 | 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".