SU‐GG‐T‐328: Dosimetric Performance of the Plastic Scintillation Detector for Radiosurgery Quality Assurance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the performance of a plastic scintillation detector (PSD) for quality assurance (QA) in stereotactic radiosurgery to micro‐chamber, gafchromic films, shielded and unshielded diodes. Method and Materials: The PSD consists of a 1 mm diameter by 1 mm long scintillating fiber (BCF‐60, Saint‐Gobain Inc.) coupled to a polymethyl‐methacrylate optical fiber (Eska premier, Mitsubitshi). Output factors and dose profiles for apertures used in radiosurgery ranging from 4 mm to 40 mm in diameter have been measured with the PSD, a micro‐chamber (MC) (A16, Exradin), a shielded diode (SD) (type 60008, PTW), an unshielded diode (UD) (SFD stereotactic, IBA Dosimetry) and gafchromic EBT films. Moreover, a typical stereotactic radiosurgery treatment using 4 non‐coplanar arcs was delivered on a spherical phantom in which UD, MC or PSD was placed. Using the Xknife planning system (Radionics), 15 Gy was prescribed at the isocenter, where each detector was positioned. Results: The output factors measured with the PSD are within a maximum discrepancy of 3.5% compared to UD for the small apertures when normalized to the 35 mm cone. For larger cones the PSD is within 1.3% compared to the SD and the MC. When done with a 35 mm cone, the measured dose for an entire typical stereotactic plan by the PSD is within 1.8% of the measurement performed using the MC and within 1% of the planning system. Volume averaging of the MC can be observed for the 5 mm aperture, where the PSD measurement differs by as much as 9.1%. Conclusion: For stereotactic radiosurgery treatment verification, the PSD gives accurate results compared to the MC once the output factor ratio of both dosimeters are taken into account to correct for the averaging effect of the MC. The PSD shows great potential for stereotactic radiosurgery QA measurements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".