MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1998958382 · doi:10.1118/1.2241286

SU‐FF‐T‐366: Prediction of Collimator Scatter Factor and Phantom Scatter Factor for Kilovoltage X‐Ray Radiation Fields

2006· article· en· W1998958382 on OpenAlexaff
V Karabrahimi, N Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollimatorImaging phantomOpticsDosimetrySquare (algebra)RadiationField sizePhysicsField (mathematics)MathematicsNuclear medicineGeometryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Kilovoltage x‐ray tube therapy beams are used for treatment of keloids and localized superficial malignancies. The purpose of this work is to predict the collimator scatter factor and phantom scatter factor for kilovoltage x‐ray radiation fields. Method and Materials: The radiation field is defined by a variable collimator with or without lead sheets on the patient's skin. Measurement and prediction were done at tube potentials of 60, 100, 120 and 250 kVp. Our approach uses three different sets of field types: square fields defined by the collimator and square and circular fields defined by lead sheets. Two calculation methods are employed: the equivalent field and Clarkson's method. Calculation and measurement were also done for rectangular and irregular shape fields. The relative difference between predicted and measured values is given in the form of percentage error as follows: 100% (predicted value − measured value) / (measured value). Results: The error ranges between calculated and measured collimator scatter factors for the equivalent field method and Clarkson's method are, respectively, 2.41% and 1.84%. All errors are within ±1% with Clarkson's method. The results show that Clarkson's method is more accurate at predicting collimator scatter factors. The error ranges between calculated and measured phantom scatter factors for the equivalent field method and Clarkson's method are, respectively, 6.3% and 3.5%. The spread of errors is narrower for Clarkson's method. Clarkson's method is therefore more accurate at predicting phantom scatter factors. Conclusion: Using the measured data for square fields defined by the collimator together with Clarkson's method is recommended. The implementation of this method requires a minimum number of measurements which are acquired during the commissioning of the unit and can be applied in dose calculation for a variety of field shapes and sizes.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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