MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983665943 · doi:10.1118/1.1536291

Calculations for plane-parallel ion chambers in 60Co beams using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo code

2003· article· en· W1983665943 on OpenAlexaff
Ernesto Mainegra‐Hing, I. Kawrakow, D. W. O. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodPhysicsImaging phantomComputational physicsIonizationElectronPhotonIonization chamberPlane (geometry)Cross section (physics)DosimetryAtomic physicsIonNuclear physicsOpticsNuclear medicineMathematicsStatisticsGeometryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulation system is used to obtain, for 10 plane-parallel ionization chambers in 60Co beams, the correction factors Kcomp and Pwall that account for the nonequivalence of the chamber wall material to the buildup cap and the phantom material, respectively. A more robust calculation method has been used compared to that used in previous works. A minor conceptual error related to the axial nonuniformity correction factor, Kan, has been identified and shown to have an effect of about 0.2%. The assumption that Pwall in-phantom is numerically equal to Kcomp calculated for a water buildup cap is shown to be accurate to better than 0.06%, thereby justifying the use of Kcomp calculations which are much more efficient. The effect on the calculated dose to the air in the cavity of the particle production threshold and transport energies used in the simulations is studied. Uncertainties in the calculated correction factors due to uncertainties in the photon and electron cross-section data are studied. They are 0.14% and 0.24%, respectively (1 standard deviation), for Kcomp factors. The uncertainties on Kwall factors are 0.03% from photon cross-section uncertainties and negligible from electron cross-section uncertainties. A comparison with previous EGS4/PRESTA calculations shows that present results are systematically higher by an average of 0.8%, ranging from 0.4% up to 1.4%. The present results are in better agreement with reported experimental values.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations64
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207