SU‐FF‐T‐97: Characterization of Amorphous Silicon Flat Panel Imager for Dose Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The major objective of the work was to categorize the dosimetric response of a Varian aS500 type Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) for dose measurements. Method and Materials: For a 6MV beam from a Varian 21EX linear accelerator, reproducibility of EPID pixel response, dose rate effect, and cumulative dose linearity were studied. In addition, scatter characteristics and depth doses were also determined using the EPID. A Capintec ion chamber in a polystyrene miniphantom and a Wellhöfer water phantom were used for comparative measurements. Results: The EPID response was found to be independent of dose rates from 100 MU/min to 600 MU/min at larger source to detector distances. However, pixel saturation was observed for dose rates beyond 300 MU/min with the EPID placed at the isocentre. Raw pixel response was reproducible to within 2 % when measured over a period of 6 weeks. Changes in scatter conditions with field size were also measured for the EPID. The EPID scatter was found to be in between 5 to 10 cm of a full water phantom. The gray scale response is linear with the dose to the portal imager. The validity of inverse square relationship was also tested to be within 0.5%, for the EPID at various distances from the source. Conclusions: The depth dose data measured with EPID showed good correspondence with that measured with a thimble type ionization chamber in a water phantom. Compared to ionization chamber data, open beam profiles measured with EPID show flat response in high dose region, rapid fall‐off in high dose gradients (> 30%/cm), and higher penumbra tail. The agreement with the ion chamber measurements could be improved if the flood field correction is performed to restore off‐axis variation of beam profile. In general the EPID qualifies as a useful tool for planar dose measurements.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".