MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007642207 · doi:10.1118/1.1395035

Monte Carlo‐aided dosimetry of the new Bebig IsoSeed<sup>®</sup> Interstitial Brachytherapy Seed

2001· article· en· W2007642207 on OpenAlexaff
George M. Daskalov, Jeffrey F. Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsKermaBrachytherapyDosimetryMonte Carlo methodPhysicsNuclear medicineIonization chamberComputational physicsMathematicsIonizationRadiation therapyMedicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new model 103Pd interstitial brachytherapy source, the IsoSeed 103Pd, was recently introduced by Bebig Isotopentechnik und Umweltdiagnostik GmbH for permanent implant applications. This study presents the first quantitative theoretical study of the seed's dosimetric quantities. Monte Carlo photon transport (MCPT) simulation techniques have been used to evaluate the dose-rate distributions around the model IsoSeed 103Pd source in liquid water and air phantoms. These results have been used to calculate and tabulate the anisotropy function, F(r, theta), radial dose function, g(r), and anisotropy factors, phi(r), and dose-rate constant as defined by AAPM Task Group 43 (TG-43) Report. Cartesian "away" and "along" tables, giving the dose rates per unit air-kerma strength in water in the range 0.1-3 cm distance around the seed have also been tabulated. The dose-rate constant, lambda, was evaluated by simulating the wide-angle, free-air chamber (WAFAC) calibration geometry recently implemented by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) to realize the primary standard of air-kerma strength (SK,N99) for low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources. The dose-rate constant has been found to be lambda=0.660+/-0.017 in units of dose-rate per unit air-kerma strength (cGy x h(-1) x U(-1)).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207