MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015216034 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/6/018

Electron absorbed fractions of energy and<i>S</i>-values in an adult human skeleton based on µCT images of trabecular bone

2011· article· en· W2015216034 on OpenAlexaff
R Krämer, Richard B. Richardson, V F Cassola, José Wilson Vieira, Helen J. Khoury, Cledinaldo Lira, Kate Robson Brown

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsAbsorbed doseDosimetryNuclear medicineSkeleton (computer programming)Ionizing radiationBone tissueSoft tissuePhysicsMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringMedicineAnatomyIrradiationNuclear physicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When the human body is exposed to ionizing radiation, among the soft tissues at risk are the active marrow (AM) and the bone endosteum (BE) located in tiny, irregular cavities of trabecular bone. Determination of absorbed fractions (AFs) of energy or absorbed dose in the AM and the BE represent one of the major challenges of dosimetry. Recently, at the Department of Nuclear Energy at the Federal University of Pernambuco, a skeletal dosimetry method based on µCT images of trabecular bone introduced into the spongiosa voxels of human phantoms has been developed and applied mainly to external exposure to photons. This study uses the same method to calculate AFs of energy and S-values (absorbed dose per unit activity) for electron-emitting radionuclides known to concentrate in skeletal tissues. The modelling of the skeletal tissue regions follows ICRP110, which defines the BE as a 50 µm thick sub-region of marrow next to the bone surfaces. The paper presents mono-energetic AFs for the AM and the BE for eight different skeletal regions for electron source energies between 1 keV and 10 MeV. The S-values are given for the beta emitters (14)C, (59)Fe, (131)I, (89)Sr, (32)P and (90)Y. Comparisons with results from other investigations showed good agreement provided that differences between methodologies and trabecular bone volume fractions were properly taken into account. Additionally, a comparison was made between specific AFs of energy in the BE calculated for the actual 50 µm endosteum and the previously recommended 10 µm endosteum. The increase in endosteum thickness leads to a decrease of the endosteum absorbed dose by up to 3.7 fold when bone is the source region, while absorbed dose increases by ∼20% when the beta emitters are in marrow.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.286 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207