Comparison of the energy-response factor of LiF and Al2O3 in radiotherapy beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Monte Carlo study of the energy-response factor of aluminium oxide (Al2O3) and lithium fluoride (LiF) TLDs in kilovoltage and megavoltage photon beams relative to 60Co gamma rays has been performed using EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulations. The sensitive volume of the detector was simulated as a disc of diameter 2.85 mm and thickness 1 mm. The phantom material was water and the irradiation depth was 2.0 cm in kilovoltage photon beams and 5.0 cm for megavoltage photon beams. The results show that the energy-response of the Al2O3 and LiF-TLDs is constant within 3% for photon beam energies in the energy range of 60Co gamma rays to 25 MV X rays. However, both detectors show an enhanced response for kilovoltage photon beams, which in the case of 50 kV X rays is 3.2 times higher than that for 60Co gamma rays. The energy-response factor was 1.46 for LiF irradiated in 50 kV X rays. The Al2O3 detector has an energy-response that is 2.2 times higher than that of LiF in 50 kV X rays decreasing to 1.19 for 250 kV X rays. The results show that the addition of 0.1 or 1% of carbon by weight (as dopant) into the Al2O3 does not change the Monte Carlo determined energy-response factor by more than 1%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".