MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005673833 · doi:10.1118/1.1668393

Accurate determination of dose‐point‐kernel functions close to the origin using Monte Carlo simulations

2004· article· en· W2005673833 on OpenAlexafffund
Christian Janicki, Jan Seuntjens

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Cancer Society
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodPhysicsComputational physicsDosimetryConsistency (knowledge bases)RADIUSKernel (algebra)Spherical shellEstimatorShell (structure)Statistical physicsMathematicsNuclear medicineComputer scienceGeometryMaterials scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dose-point-kernel (DPK) functions are used extensively for the dosimetry of gamma and beta emitters in many physical problems. These functions are usually obtained from Monte Carlo simulations where the energy deposited in concentric spherical shells around a point source is tallied. The energy scored in a spherical shell divided by the shell mass is taken as the dose at some effective radius R(eff) of the shell. The effective radius R(eff), defined as the distance of a hypothetical zero-thickness scoring region from the source, can be evaluated in different ways for a finite thickness scoring region. For a shell thickness that is very small compared to the distance from the origin, this exact evaluation method becomes unimportant and the arithmetic mean is usually an accurate estimator for R(eff). However, accurately determining R(eff) can be problematic for the innermost regions when the radial dose function D(r) varies considerably over the finite spherical shell thickness. In this work, a new method for determining R(eff) is introduced which yields consistent results for any shell thickness, thus improving on previous Monte Carlo calculations for DPKs at or near the origin. Dimensionless DPK functions for monoenergetic electrons were reevaluated using EGSnrc with an emphasis on accuracy and consistency near the origin using our new method for determining R(eff). These improved functions were implemented in a software code to calculate the DPKs for an exhaustive list of 546 beta emitters, thus extending the compilation from previous works.

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)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations12
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207