MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972572607 · doi:10.1063/1.3115667

Electron and photon spread contributions to the radiological penumbra for small monoenergetic x-ray beam (≤2 MeV)

2009· article· en· W1972572607 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Philippe Pignol, Brian Keller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenumbraPhotonPhysicsElectronCathode rayMonte Carlo methodBeam (structure)Range (aeronautics)OpticsSecondary electronsRadiationPhoton energyAtomic physicsNuclear physicsMaterials scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our team has previously published that submegavoltage photons could significantly improve the radiological penumbra for small size radiation fields. The present work uses Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate the contributions of secondary electrons and photon scatter to the penumbra region for various field sizes (5, 10, 20, and 40 mm in diameters) and for various monoenergetic photon beams (200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, and 2000 keV, and a standard 6 MV beam), minimizing geometrical and transmission penumbra. For field sizes less than 2 cm in diameter, photon scatter is negligible such that the secondary electrons are the main contributor to the radiological penumbra. Reducing the photon beam energy to the submegavoltage range reduces the range of secondary electrons and eventually improves the beam boundary sharpness. Provided that the geometrical penumbra and patient immobilization system are optimized, submegavoltage photon beams with effective photon energies in the 300 to 600 keV range, present significant advantages for multiple beam stereotactic irradiations of tumors less than 2 cm in diameter.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207