Determination of air‐kerma strength for the <sup>192</sup>Ir GammaMed iX pulsed‐dose‐rate brachytherapy source
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pulsed-dose-rate (PDR) brachytherapy was originally proposed to combine the therapeutic advantages of high-dose-rate (HDR) and low-dose-rate brachytherapy. Though uncommon in the United States, several facilities employ pulsed-dose-rate brachytherapy in Europe and Canada. Currently, there is no air-kerma strength standard for PDR brachytherapy (192)Ir sources traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Discrepancies in clinical measurements of the air-kerma strength of the PDR brachytherapy sources using HDR source-calibrated well chambers warrant further investigation. METHODS: In this research, the air-kerma strength for an (192)Ir PDR brachytherapy source was compared with the University of Wisconsin Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory transfer standard well chambers, the seven-distance technique [B. E. Rasmussen et al., "The air-kerma strength standard for 192Ir HDR sources," Med. Phys. 38, 6721-6729 (2011)], and the manufacturer's stated value. Radiochromic film and Monte Carlo techniques were also employed for comparison to the results of the measurements. RESULTS: While the measurements using the seven-distance technique were within + 0.44% from the manufacturer's determination, there was a + 3.10% difference between the transfer standard well chamber measurements and the manufacturer's stated value. Results showed that the PDR brachytherapy source has geometric and thus radiological qualities that exhibit behaviors similar to a point source model in contrast to a conventional line source model. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting effect of the pointlike characteristics of the PDR brachytherapy source likely account for the differences observed between well chamber and in-air measurements.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".