Direct measurement of absorbed dose to water in HDR I192r brachytherapy: Water calorimetry, ionization chamber, Gafchromic film, and TG-43
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Gafchromic film and ionometric calibration procedures for HDR 192Ir brachytherapy sources in terms of dose rate to water are presented and the experimental results are compared to the TG-43 protocol as well as with the absolute dose measurement results from a water calorimetry-based primary standard. METHODS: EBT-1 Gafchromic films, an A1SL Exradin miniature Shonka thimble type chamber, and an SI HDR 1000 Plus well-type chamber (Standard Imaging, Inc., Middleton, WI) with an ADCL traceable Sk calibration coefficient (following the AAPM TG-43 protocol) were used. The Farmer chamber and Gafchromic film measurements were performed directly in water. All results were compared to direct and absolute absorbed dose to water measurements from a 4 degrees C stagnant water calorimeter. RESULTS: Based on water calorimetry, the authors measured the dose rate to water to be 361 +/- 7 microGy/(h U) at a 55 mm source-to-detector separation. The dose rate normalized to air-kerma strength for all the techniques agree with the water calorimetry results to within 0.83%. The overall 1-sigma uncertainty on water calorimetry, ionization chamber, Gafchromic film, and TG-43 dose rate measurement amounts to 1.90%, 1.44%, 1.78%, and 2.50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This work allows us to build a more realistic uncertainty estimate for absorbed dose to water determination using the TG-43 protocol. Furthermore, it provides the framework necessary for a shift from indirect HDR 192Ir brachytherapy dosimetry to a more accurate, direct, and absolute measurement of absorbed dose to water.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".