MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2017884793 · doi:10.1118/1.3468014

SU‐EE‐A2‐03: Evaluating AAPM TG‐43 In‐Water HDR 192Ir Brachytherapy Reference Dosimetry: A Comparison Study

2010· article· en· W2017884793 on OpenAlexaff
Arman Sarfehnia, I. Kawrakow, Jan Seuntjens

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimetryIonization chamberCalibrationMonte Carlo methodMaterials scienceBrachytherapyPrimary standardDosimeterNuclear medicinePhysicsIonizationMedicineRadiation therapyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To investigate the accuracy of AAPM TG‐43 in HDR 192Ir brachytherapy in water reference dosimetry by comparing the protocol against ionometric and Gafchromic film calibration procedures introduced as well as a water calorimetry‐based primary standard. Methods and Materials: Dose to water Dwater was measured directly in water using an Exradin A1SL farmer‐type chamber and EBT‐1 Gafchromic films. The chamber had a NIST‐traceable 60Co calibration factor while the films were calibrated under 6 MV photons. Accurate Monte Carlo modeling and simulation of the chamber (egs++) and EBT Gafchromic films (DOSRZnrc) were performed to convert calibration factors of the two detectors from their respective conditions into 192Ir brachytherapy. The Dwater results were compared to measurements made using a Standard Imaging well‐type chamber following AAPM TG‐43 protocol and water calorimetry primary standard measurements. Results: By calculating the ratio of dose‐to‐water to dose‐to‐gas for the A1SL chamber under reference 60Co conditions and 192Ir setup conditions, the ionization measurements in 192Ir were converted to dose to water. The Monte Carlo calculations in film dosimetry revealed that if the intrinsic energy dependence of the film is negligible, a sensitometric curve obtained with 6 MV can be used in 192Ir measurements, with the energy dependence correction being 0.9971 (1σ=0.1%). The overall one‐sigma uncertainty on ionization chamber, Gafchromic film, and water calorimetry dose rate measurement amounts to 1.44%, 1.78%, and 1.96%, respectively. The indirect Dwater measurements from TG‐43 agreed to within 1.4% with ionometric measurements, 0.3% with Gafchromic measurements, and 0.6% with Calorimetric absolute dose measurements. Conclusions: Accurate ionometric and Gafchromic film based calibration protocols are introduced. For 192Ir brachytherapy, the 1‐sigma uncertainty of TG‐43 reference dosimetry was found to be better than 1.4%.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→