MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012289908 · doi:10.1118/1.2924221

Monte Carlo simulation of MOSFET dosimeter for electron backscatter using the <scp>GEANT4</scp> code

2008· article· en· W2012289908 on OpenAlexafffund
James C. L. Chow, Michael K. K. Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadiation Effects in Electronics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodDosimeterBackscatter (email)MOSFETElectronDosimetryPhysicsFluenceMaterials scienceComputational physicsCathode rayRadiationOpticsTransistorNuclear physicsNuclear medicineIrradiationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to investigate the influence of the body of the metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) dosimeter in measuring the electron backscatter from lead. The electron backscatter factor (EBF), which is defined as the ratio of dose at the tissue-lead interface to the dose at the same point without the presence of backscatter, was calculated by the Monte Carlo simulation using the GEANT4 code. Electron beams with energies of 4, 6, 9, and 12 MeV were used in the simulation. It was found that in the presence of the MOSFET body, the EBFs were underestimated by about 2%-0.9% for electron beam energies of 4-12 MeV, respectively. The trend of the decrease of EBF with an increase of electron energy can be explained by the small MOSFET dosimeter, mainly made of epoxy and silicon, not only attenuated the electron fluence of the electron beam from upstream, but also the electron backscatter generated by the lead underneath the dosimeter. However, this variation of the EBF underestimation is within the same order of the statistical uncertainties as the Monte Carlo simulations, which ranged from 1.3% to 0.8% for the electron energies of 4-12 MeV, due to the small dosimetric volume. Such small EBF deviation is therefore insignificant when the uncertainty of the Monte Carlo simulation is taken into account. Corresponding measurements were carried out and uncertainties compared to Monte Carlo results were within +/- 2%. Spectra of energy deposited by the backscattered electrons in dosimetric volumes with and without the lead and MOSFET were determined by Monte Carlo simulations. It was found that in both cases, when the MOSFET body is either present or absent in the simulation, deviations of electron energy spectra with and without the lead decrease with an increase of the electron beam energy. Moreover, the softer spectrum of the backscattered electron when lead is present can result in a reduction of the MOSFET response due to stronger recombination in the SiO2 gate. It is concluded that the MOSFET dosimeter performed well for measuring the electron backscatter from lead using electron beams. The uncertainty of EBF determined by comparing the results of Monte Carlo simulations and measurements is well within the accuracy of the MOSFET dosimeter (< +/- 4.2%) provided by the manufacturer.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Effects in ElectronicsFrench-language works237,207