MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

3D tomodosimetry using scintillating fibers: proof-of-concept

2013· article· en· W1979762183 on OpenAlexaff
M Goulet, L Gingras, Luc Beaulieu, Louis Archambault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimeterOpticsConcentricResolution (logic)PhysicsDose profilePercentage depth dose curvePlane (geometry)Materials scienceRadiationBeam (structure)GeometryMathematicsIonization chamberComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a novel, high-resolution 3D dosimeter based on the tomographic acquisition of the dose using long scintillating fibers. This study aims to demonstrate the concept of the dosimeter with simulated acquisitions using the input dose from Pinnacle 3 . The dosimeter is composed of concentric, cylindrical planes in which scintillating fibers are placed at different angles between the fiber and the cylindrical plane. Upon a complete rotation of the device around its central axis, the incident dose distribution on the cylindrical planes can be reconstructed using tomographic reconstruction algorithm. The 3D dose in the dosimeter can then be interpolated from the cylindrical 2D dose distributions. Using a simulated acquisition composed of two concentric cylindrical planes of 36 and 32 fibers each, we achieve below 1% local dose difference between the reconstructed 3D dose and the expected dose from Pinnacle 3 in the high dose, low gradient region of the volume encompassed inside the innermost cylindrical plane. The results show the potential of the method to perform high-resolution 3D dose measurements of both square and IMRT fields.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207