Response of LiF-TLD micro-rods around<sup>125</sup>I radioactive seed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The EGSnrc Monte Carlo system has been used to calculate the energy response of LiF-TLDs of different sizes around 125I permanent brachytherapy sources. The source model includes the effects of an encapsulation, self-absorption within the source and in the welded ends of the encapsulation. The LiF-TLD material has cylindrical geometry (micro-rod) with diameters ranging from 1 mm to 5 mm and a length of 6 mm. The energy response factor (relative to 60(Co gamma-rays) for a LiF-TLD calibrated in 60Co gamma-rays and then irradiated by an 125I permanent brachytherapy source varies between 1.32 +/- 0.2% (1 SD) and 1.406 +/- 0.2% (1 SD) for 5 mm and 1 mm diameter micro-rods, respectively. The energy response factor depends on the radius and the polar angle (r, theta) of the measurement point. For a LiF-TLD of diameter 1 mm calibrated at 1 cm on the transverse axis (r = 1.0 cm, theta = 90) of the 125I source in water, the energy response factor decreases by a maximum of 3.5% within the 6 cm x 6 cm x 6 cm calculation region. For the 5 mm diameter LiF-TLD, the energy response factor decreases by a maximum of 5% in the same region. An examination of the photon energy spectra showed that the photon spectrum does not change significantly in water within the 3D calculation region (6 cm x 6 cm x 6 cm). The mass energy absorption coefficient ratio of water to LiF-TLDs does not vary by more than 0.5% in this calculation grid. The results, however, show that there is a change in the photon spectrum with distance from the source and with polar angle for LiF-TLDs. This difference in the energy spectrum gives rise to a difference in the mass energy absorption coefficient ratio of water to LiF (calculated by taking into account the difference in photon fluence in water and LiF) and that calculated assuming that the photon spectrum in water and in the LiF-TLD is identical.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".