MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2001519574 · doi:10.1118/1.4814043

SU-D-103-05: Radiochromic Film Based System for CTDI Measurements

2013· article· en· W2001519574 on OpenAlexaff
Nada Tomic, N Sharoubim, F DeBlois, Jan Seuntjens, Slobodan Dević

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKermaScannerDosimetryImaging phantomMaterials scienceNuclear medicineIonization chamberCalibrationDose profileOpticsMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: We demonstrate a new method for computed tomography dose index (CTDI) measurements performed on CT scanners using XR-QA model radiochromic film dosimetry system. Method was tested by comparing measured to CT scanner listed CTDI values for fifteen different CT scanners at various locations. Methods: Reference dosimetry system was calibrated in terms of air kerma in air. Dose profiles were measured with XR-QA2 radiochromic film strips, sandwiched between acrylic rods cut in half and placed within CTDI phantoms. Film strips were scanned before and after irradiation with Epson Perfection V500 scanner in reflective mode. Reflectance change was measured using red color channel from TIFF images of scanned films and it was converted into air kerma in air using calibration curves. Measured air kerma in air was subsequently converted into absorbed dose to water following AAPM TG-61 protocol. We also investigated the impact of scan length by scanning CTDI phantom 5, 10, and 15 cm longitudinally. Results: Average doses along profiles from each film piece were used to calculate weighted CTDIvol. Average difference for the first 10 scanners between calculated and listed CTDIvol was 21.8% for Head and 10.4% for Body protocol. Our study also showed that as the scanning length was increasing, the difference between measured and tabulated CTDIvol decreased. For the last 5 CT scanners, the scanning length of 5-10 cm was changed to 15 cm for both Head and Body scanning protocols, resulting in average difference between measured and tabulated CTDIvol values of 3.8% for Head and 9.4% for Body scanning protocol. Conclusion: In contrast to ionization chamber measurement, the proposed method requires only a single exposure, does not need stem effect correction, and provides an acceptable accuracy when compared to CT scanner listed CTDIvol values. It also measures dose profiles allowing measurements of DLP and peak doses.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.277
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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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