Monte Carlo techniques for scattering foil design and dosimetry in total skin electron irradiations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Total skin electron irradiation (TSEI) with single fields requires large electron beams having good dose uniformity, dmax at the skin surface, and low bremsstrahlung contamination. To satisfy these requirements, energy degraders and scattering foils have to be specially designed for the given accelerator and treatment room. We used Monte Carlo (MC) techniques based on EGS4 user codes (BEAM, DOSXYZ, and DOSRZ) as a guide in the beam modifier design of our TSEI system. The dosimetric characteristics at the treatment distance of 382 cm source-to-surface distance (SSD) were verified experimentally using a linear array of 47 ion chambers, a parallel plate chamber, and radiochromic film. By matching MC simulations to standard beam measurements at 100 cm SSD, the parameters of the electron beam incident on the vacuum window were determined. Best match was achieved assuming that electrons were monoenergetic at 6.72 MeV, parallel, and distributed in a circular pattern having a Gaussian radial distribution with full width at half maximum = 0.13 cm. These parameters were then used to simulate our TSEI unit with various scattering foils. Two of the foils were fabricated and experimentally evaluated by measuring off-axis dose uniformity and depth doses. A scattering foil, consisting of a 12 x 12 cm2 aluminum plate of 0.6 cm thickness and placed at isocenter perpendicular to the beam direction, was considered optimal. It produced a beam that was flat within +/-3% up to 60 cm off-axis distance, dropped by not more than 8% at a distance of 90 cm, and had an x-ray contamination of <3%. For stationary beams, MC-computed dmax, Rp, and R50 agreed with measurements within 0.5 mm. The MC-predicted surface dose of the rotating phantom was 41% of the dose rate at dmax of the stationary phantom, whereas our calculations based on a semiempirical formula in the literature yielded a drop to 42%. The MC simulations provided the guideline of beam modifier design for TSEI and estimated the dosimetric performance for stationary and rotational irradiations.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".