On charged particle equilibrium violation in external photon fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In a recent paper by Bouchard et al. [Med. Phys. 36(10), 4654-4663 (2009)], a theoretical model of quality correction factors for idealistic so-called plan-class specific reference (PCSR) fields was proposed. The reasoning was founded on the definition of PCSR fields made earlier by Alfonso et al. [Med. Phys. 35(11), 5179-5186 (2008)], requiring the beam to achieve charged particle equilibrium (CPE), in a time-averaged sense, in the reference medium. The relation obtained by Bouchard et al. was derived using Fano's theorem (1954) which states that if CPE is established in a given medium, the dose is independent of point-to-point density variations. A potential misconception on the achievability of the condition required by Fano (1954) might be responsible for false practical conclusions, both in the definition of PCSR fields as well as the theoretical model of quality correction factor. METHODS: In this paper, the practical achievability of CPE in external beams is treated in detail. The fact that this condition is not achievable in single or composite deliveries is illustrated by an intuitive method and is also formally demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: Fano's theorem is not applicable in external beam radiation dosimetry without (virtually) removing attenuation effects, and therefore, the relation conditionally defined by Bouchard et al. (2009) cannot be valid in practice. A definition of PCSR fields in the recent formalism for nonstandard beams proposed by Alfonso et al. (2008) should be modified, revising the criterion of CPE condition. The authors propose reconsidering the terminology used to describe standard and nonstandard beams. The authors argue that quality correction factors of intensity modulated radiation therapy PCSR fields (i.e., k(Q(pcsr),Q) (f(pcsr),f(ref) )) could be unity under ideal conditions, but it is concluded that further investigation is necessary to confirm that hypothesis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".