SU‐FF‐T‐368: Evaluation of Physical Characteristics of a Prototype Portable Dosimeter System in CT: Comparison Between Portable and Mobile MOSFET Dosimeter Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the physical characteristics of a prototype portable MOSFET dosimeter system (TN‐RD‐91, Best Medical Canada, Ottawa, Canada) and compare its performance with the mobile MOSFET dosimeter system (TN‐RD‐70‐W) at clinical diagnostic settings. Method and Materials: Two dosimeters (TN‐1002RD) of each system were placed side by side accompanied by an ion chamber (model 10×5–6) and Radiation Monitor (model 9015, Radcal, Monrovia, CA) on top of a tissue equivalent phantom 150mm×150mm×200mm (CIRS, Norfolk, Virginia). They were exposed to a beam quality of HVL 7.24 mm Al for the GE CT scanners (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI). Results: We evaluated and compared the portable and mobile MOSFET dosimeter system (with high sensitivity reader bias) for sensitivity, linearity, and reproducibility at two CT beam energies: 120 kVp and 80 kVp. The average sensitivity at 120 kVp was 28.8±1.01 mV/cGy for portable dosimeter and 31.61±0.84 mV/cGy for mobile MOSFET, and 32.3±1.3 mV/cGy and 31.62±0.25 accordingly at 80 kVp. The linearity of dosimeters was tested from 0.3 mGy to 14.0 mGy; the goodness of fit at 120 kVp for the portable dosimeter was 0.9982 and for the mobile MOSFET: 0.9973. The goodness of fit at 80 kVp was 0.9992 and 0.9997 accordingly. The reproducibility for both dosimeters was evaluated at 120 kVp and 80 kVp from 1 mGy to 17 mG and showed comparable results at each of dose points. Conclusion: We conclude that the portable dosimeter and mobile MOSFET performance characteristics are basically equivalent and the portable dosimeter offers an alternative to regular mobile MOSFET system. Conflict of Interest: Best Medical Canada provided the prototype portable dosimeter system for the study
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".