MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017104537 · doi:10.1118/1.1398303

Miniature tissue‐equivalent proportional counters for BNCT and BNCEFNT dosimetry

2001· article· en· W2017104537 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Burmeister, C. Kota, Richard L. Maughan, A.J. Waker

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBoron Compounds in Chemistry
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsDosimetryNeutronNeutron captureImaging phantomProportional counterAbsorbed doseMedical physicsDetectorPhysicsNeutron detectionEquivalent doseNuclear medicineMaterials scienceNuclear physicsRadiochemistryOpticsMedicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A dual miniature tissue-equivalent proportional counter (TEPC) system has been developed to facilitate microdosimetry for Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT). This system has been designed specifically to allow the analysis of the single event charged particle spectrum in phantom in high intensity BNCT beams and to provide this microdosimetric information with excellent spatial resolution. Paired A-150 and 10B-loaded A-150 TEPCs with 12.3 mm3 collecting volumes have been constructed. These TEPCs allow more accurate neutron dosimetry than current techniques, offer a direct measure of the boron neutron capture dose, and provide a framework for predicting the biological effectiveness of the absorbed dose. Design aspects and characterization of these detectors are reviewed, along with an exposition of the advantages of microdosimetry using these detectors over conventional dosimetry methods. In addition, the utility of this technique for boron neutron capture enhancement of fast neutron therapy (BNCEFNT) is discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations31
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicBoron Compounds in ChemistryFrench-language works237,207