MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977914692 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/22/012

Backscatter factors and mass energy-absorption coefficient ratios for diagnostic radiology dosimetry

2011· article· en· W1977914692 on OpenAlexaff
Hamza Benmakhlouf, Hugo Bouchard, Annette Fransson, Pedro Andreo

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersLawrence Livermore National Laboratory
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodDosimetryBackscatter (email)Computational physicsImaging phantomPhysicsSpectral lineRange (aeronautics)Energy (signal processing)PhotonNuclear medicineMedical physicsOpticsMaterials scienceComputer scienceStatisticsMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Backscatter factors, B, and mass energy-absorption coefficient ratios, (μ(en)/ρ)(w, air), for the determination of the surface dose in diagnostic radiology were calculated using Monte Carlo simulations. The main purpose was to extend the range of available data to qualities used in modern x-ray techniques, particularly for interventional radiology. A comprehensive database for mono-energetic photons between 4 and 150 keV and different field sizes was created for a 15 cm thick water phantom. Backscattered spectra were calculated with the PENELOPE Monte Carlo system, scoring track-length fluence differential in energy with negligible statistical uncertainty; using the Monte Carlo computed spectra, B factors and (μ(en)/ρ)(w, air) were then calculated numerically for each energy. Weighted averaging procedures were subsequently used to convolve incident clinical spectra with mono-energetic data. The method was benchmarked against full Monte Carlo calculations of incident clinical spectra obtaining differences within 0.3-0.6%. The technique used enables the calculation of B and (μ(en)/ρ)(w, air) for any incident spectrum without further time-consuming Monte Carlo simulations. The adequacy of the extended dosimetry data to a broader range of clinical qualities than those currently available, while keeping consistency with existing data, was confirmed through detailed comparisons. Mono-energetic and spectra-averaged values were compared with published data, including those in ICRU Report 74 and IAEA TRS-457, finding average differences of 0.6%. Results are provided in comprehensive tables appropriated for clinical use. Additional qualities can easily be calculated using a designed GUI interface in conjunction with software to generate incident photon spectra.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations56
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207