MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986617019 · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncl546

Proton and photon absorbed-dose conversion coefficients for embryo and foetus from top-down irradiation geometry

2007· article· en· W1986617019 on OpenAlexaff
J. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrradiationAbsorbed dosePhotonProtonPhysicsIsotropyRadiochemistryNuclear physicsOpticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Absorbed-dose conversion coefficients are calculated for the embryo of 8 weeks and the foetus of 3, 6 or 9 months when the mother's body is exposed to protons and photons from top-down (TOP) direction. It provides data sets in addition to other standard irradiation geometries published previously. The TOP-irradiation geometry is considered here, because high-energy particles are often peaked from the TOP direction onboard aircrafts. The results show that absorbed-doses from high-energy particles could be underestimated significantly if isotropic (ISO) irradiation geometry is assumed. For protons of 100 GeV, absorbed-doses from TOP irradiation are approximately 2.3-2.9 times higher than the doses from ISO irradiation for different foetal ages. For 10 GeV photons, foetal doses from TOP irradiation are approximately 6.8-12 times higher than the doses from ISO irradiation. The coefficients from TOP-irradiation geometry are given in wide energy ranges, from 100 MeV to 100 GeV for protons and from 50 keV to 10 GeV for photons. They can, therefore, be used in various applications whenever exposure from the TOP-irradiation direction is concerned.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation Protection DosimetrySame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207