Dosimetric properties of improved GafChromic films for seven different digitizers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two recently introduced GafChromic film models, HS and XR-T, have been developed as more sensitive and uniform alternatives to GafChromic MD-55-2 film. The HS model has been specifically designed for measurement of absorbed dose in high-energy photon beams (above 1 MeV), while the XR-T model has been introduced for dose measurements of low energy (0.1 MeV) photons. The goal of this study is to compare the sensitometric curves and estimated dosimetric uncertainties associated with seven different GafChromic film dosimetry systems for the two new film models. The densitometers tested are: LKB Pharmacia UltroScan XL, Molecular Dynamics Personal Densitometer, Nuclear Associates Radiochromic Densitometer Model 37-443, Photoelectron Corporation CMR-604, Laser Pro 16, Vidar VXR-16, and AGFA Arcus II document scanner. Pieces of film were exposed to different doses in a dose range from 0.5 to 50 Gy using 6 MV photon beam. Functional forms for dose vs net optical density have been determined for each of the GafChromic film-dosimetry systems used in this comparison. Two sources of uncertainties in dose measurements, governed by the experimental measurement and calibration curve fit procedure, have been compared for the densitometers used. Among the densitometers tested, it is found that for the HS film type the uncertainty caused by the experimental measurement varies from 1% to 3% while the calibration fit uncertainty ranges from 2% to 4% for doses above 5 Gy. Corresponding uncertainties for XR-T film model are somewhat higher and range from 1% to 5% for experimental and from 2% to 7% for the fit uncertainty estimates. Notwithstanding the significant variations in sensitivity, the studied densitometers exhibit very similar precision for GafChromic film based dose measurements above 5 Gy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".