COMPARISON OF SLICED LUNGS WITH WHOLE LUNG SETS FOR A TORSO PHANTOM MEASURED WITH GE DETECTORS USING MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS (MCNP)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung counters are generally used to measure low energy photons (<100 keV). They are usually calibrated with lung sets that are manufactured from a lung tissue substitute material that contains homogeneously distributed activity; however, it is difficult to verify either the activity in the phantom or the homogeneity of the activity distribution without destructive testing. Lung sets can have activities that are as much as 25% different from the expected value. An alternative method to using whole lungs to calibrate a lung counter is to use a sliced lung with planar inserts. Experimental work has already indicated that this alternative method of calibration can be a satisfactory substitute. This work has extended the experimental study by the use of Monte Carlo simulation to validate that sliced and whole lungs are equivalent. It also has determined the optimum slice thicknesses that separate the planar sources in the sliced lung. Slice thicknesses have been investigated in the range of 0.5 cm to 9.0 cm and at photon energies from 17 keV to 1,000 keV. Results have shown that there is little difference between sliced and whole lungs at low energies providing that the slice thickness is 2.0 cm or less. As the photon energy rises the slice thickness can increase substantially with no degradation on equivalence.
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.
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 it