MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2004941294 · doi:10.1118/1.3476111

Poster — Thur Eve — 06: Radiochromic Film Densitometry with Vista15 Optical Cone Beam CT Scanner

2010· article· en· W2004941294 on OpenAlexaff
Gordana Stanković-Babić, K Jordan

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScannerOpticsDosimetryCalibrationMaterials scienceDensitometryGhostingShadow (psychology)PhysicsNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To examine the performance of a scatter corrected commercial optical cone beam CT scanner, Vista15™, adapted for radiochromic film dosimetry. Methods: A slotted film mask adjacent to the EBT2 film was used to generate alternating open and dark areas. Three images were acquired with the mask centered along the optical axis and offset +/−0.7cm. The masked transmission images were processed by first forming composite images from the open and shadow areas of the three image sets. The composite shadow image was subtracted from the corresponding open image to create a “glare‐free image”. Net optical density (OD) images were generated by calculating −log10 (corrected post/corrected pre image). The calibration dose response in EBT2 film using multiple 4MV photon fields and a single 12MeV electron field was measured. Results: In the corrected data, net OD increased and the buildup region mirrored actual 12MeV dose deposition in water. This trend was also observed in the multiple 4MV photon field calibration data. From comparing the two calibration techniques, a discrepancy in net OD of up to 4% was observed. This suggests that EBT2 film users should have a consistent method for calibrating the dose response. Conclusions: The emission spectrum of Vista15™ designed for readout of radiochromic gels and plastics overlaps the absorption peak in EBT2 films, thus, making this scanner convenient and economical for both planar and 3D dosimetry. A method for veiling glare correction is promising but a more complex multiple grid approach will be needed in order to achieve quantitative densitometry.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.006

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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→