MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1994988866 · doi:10.1118/1.3476162

Poster — Thur Eve — 57: Use of a Micro Liquid Ionization Chamber for Commissioning of Radiosurgery Beams

2010· article· en· W1994988866 on OpenAlexaff
Horacio Patrocinio, Michael D. Evans, R. Ruo, E Soisson, Ismail AlDahlawi, Jan Seuntjens

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIonization chamberCollimatorElectrometerRadiosurgeryDosimetryBeam (structure)Materials scienceOpticsLinear particle acceleratorNuclear medicinePercentage depth dose curvePhysicsIonizationIonRadiation therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A commercially available liquid ionization chamber (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) was used in the commissioning of stereotactic radiosurgery beams for a Novalis Tx linear accelerator. The chamber has a small collecting volume (0.002cm3) yet providing a relatively high signal for its size. The chamber was attached to a solitary electrometer for output measurements, and to a water scanning system for PDD and beam profile measurements. The commissioning set consisted of output factors, percentage depth doses and off‐axis beam profiles for six collimator sizes ranging from 4mm to 15mm in diameter. The measured data was compared to both Gafchromic film dosimetry measurements and to data from the literature. Output factors measured with the liquid ion chamber are in good agreement with film measurements (<2% difference, except for 3.8% difference for the 4mm collimator). Similar overall agreement was found with a recent publication by Fan et al.,(2009). Beam profile measurements were found to be in very good agreement with Gafchromic film measurements. Our PDD data was equally in reasonable agreement with data from a recent publication by Chang et al., (2008) with discrepancies of 2–3% observed. A comparison of TMRs calculated from our PDD data and from direct measurement revealed larger differences, increasing with depth, that have yet to be resolved. The liquid ion chamber was easy to use required only a brief pre‐irradiation to provide a stable signal. Our preliminary results suggest this high spatial resolution chamber has usefulness in small field measurements.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.007

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→