MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014515263 · doi:10.1118/1.3121488

On the characterization and uncertainty analysis of radiochromic film dosimetry

2009· article· en· W2014515263 on OpenAlexafffund
Hugo Bouchard, Frédéric Lacroix, Gilles Beaudoin, Jean‐François Carrier, I. Kawrakow

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDosimetryMeasurement uncertaintyUncertainty analysisDosimeterCalibrationOpticsPhysicsMaterials scienceMathematicsStatisticsRadiationNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiochromic film is a dosimeter of choice in applications requiring high spatial resolution, two dimensional measurements, or minimum perturbation of the beam fluence. Since the measurement uncertainty in Gafchromic film dosimetry is thought to be significant compared to that of ionization chambers, a rigorous method to evaluate measurement uncertainties is desired. This article provides a method that takes into account the correlation between fit parameters as well as single dose values in order to obtain accurate uncertainties in absolute and relative measurements. A complete portrait of all sources of uncertainty in Gafchromic film dosimetry is given. The parametrization of variance as a function of the number of averaged pixels is obtained in order to accurately predict the uncertainty as a function of the size of the region of interest. The choice of functional form for the sensitometric curve is based on four criteria and a convergence of global net optical density uncertainty to 0.0013 is demonstrated. A minimum number of 12 points is recommended to characterize the sensitometric curve to a sufficient precision on the uncertainty estimation. Uncertainty levels of 0.9% on absolute dose measurements and 0.45% on relative measurements are achieved using a 12-point calibration curve with 220 cGy and repeating measurements five times. Uncertainties of 0.8% and 0.4% are achievable when using 35 points during film characterization. Ignoring covariance terms is shown to lead to errors in the estimation of uncertainty.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations129
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207