SU‐GG‐T‐279: Evaluation of a Novel 4D In‐Vivo Dosimeter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To present the latest quality assurance and characterization tests of the RADPOS 4‐D in vivo dosimetry system. Method and Materials: The dosimetric evaluation of this system included the measurement of in‐air dose profiles in , 6 MV, and 18 MV beams, and the investigation of the dependence of detector response on beam angle and field size. The stability and accuracy of the positioning component of the RADPOS detector was studied as well as the effect of metals and other commonly used materials on the RADPOS signal. Results: The dose profiles measured with the RADPOS detector and the diode agreed in within 0.41%, 0.53%, and 2.69% for the , 6 MV, and 18 MV beams, respectively. The angular response of the RADPOS probe over 360° was isotropic within 1.6% (1SD). Over a period of seventy minutes, the position of the RADPOS was read every 30 s and found stable within 0.37 mm. The system can also measure the displacement of a RADPOS detector with an accuracy of (0.45 ± 0.07) mm and (0.75 ± 0.07) mm for step sizes up to 50 mm and 200 mm respectively. The only materials that caused significant interference with the RADPOS signal were aluminum, brass, steel and lead. However, once the separation between the detector and the sample was >100 mm, the interference was minimal (the average deviation was less than 1.00 mm for all samples and sizes). Conclusion: Results of the preliminary tests indicate that the device can be used for in‐vivo dosimetry in and high‐energy beams from linear accelerators. Future work will involve technical improvements to the device, experiments in a 4D phantom and finally patient in‐vivo dosimetry. Acknowledgement: This project has been supported by a grant from HTX‐OCE‐IRAP and Best Medical.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".