Sci—Sat AM: Brachy — 03: Feasibility study of the determination of absorbed dose to water using a fricke based system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By measuring the dose to water directly a metrology standard, independent of air kerma, can be developed to make the basis of HDR brachytherapy dosimetry consistent with current dosimetry methods for external radiation beams. The Fricke dosimeter system, a liquid chemical dosimeter, provides a means of measuring the absorbed dose rate to water directly by measuring the radiation‐induced change in absorption of the Fricke solution. In an attempt to measure the absorbed dose to water directly for a 192Ir HDR brachytherapy source a ring shaped Fricke holder was constructed from PMMA, essentially following the work of Austerlitz et al. (Med. Phys. 2008). Benchmark measurements conducted in a 60Co beam yielded a standard uncertainty in the absorption reading of 0.16 %, comparable with previous results in the literature. Measurements of the standard uncertainty of the control (unirradiated) solution using the holder yielded 0.2 %, indicating good process control and minimal contamination from the holder itself. However, it was found that the holder sealing method (to allow measurements in a water phantom) significantly contaminated the Fricke solution, resulting in an excessive background reading. Irradiations were therefore conducted in air to determine the feasibility of the procedure. Irradiations with a 17 GBq source gave a standard uncertainty of approximately 0.5 %, indicating that the target uncertainty of 1.5% for the measurement of absorbed dose to water using a Fricke‐based primary standard is achievable. This would be comparable with calorimeter‐based systems currently being developed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".