MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027902922 · doi:10.1118/1.3687864

Beam quality conversion factors for parallel-plate ionization chambers in MV photon beams

2012· article· en· W2027902922 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan Muir, M McEwen, D. W. O. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)PhotonIonizationLaser beam qualityBeam (structure)Ionization chamberOpticsPhysicsDosimetryMaterials scienceAtomic physicsLaser beamsNuclear medicineIonMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To investigate the behavior of plane-parallel ion chambers in high-energy photon beams through measurements and Monte Carlo simulations. METHODS: Ten plane-parallel ion chamber types were obtained from the major ion chamber manufacturers. Absorbed dose-to-water calibration coefficients are measured for these chambers and k(Q) factors are determined. In the process, the behaviors of the chambers are characterized through measurements of leakage currents, chamber settling in cobalt-60, polarity and ion recombination behavior, and long-term stability. Monte Carlo calculations of the absorbed dose to the air in the ion chamber and absorbed dose to water are obtained to calculate k(Q) factors. Systematic uncertainties in Monte Carlo calculated k(Q) factors are investigated by varying material properties and chamber dimensions. RESULTS: Chamber behavior was variable in MV photon beams, especially with regard to chamber leakage and ion recombination. The plane-parallel chambers did not perform as well as cylindrical chambers. Significant differences up to 1.5% were observed in calibration coefficients after a period of eight months although k(Q) factors were consistent on average within 0.17%. Chamber-to-chamber variations in k(Q) factors for chambers of the same type were at the 0.2% level. Systematic uncertainties in Monte Carlo calculated k(Q) factors ranged between 0.34% and 0.50% depending on the chamber type. Average percent differences between measured and calculated k(Q) factors were - 0.02%, 0.18%, and - 0.16% for 6, 10, and 25 MV beams, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent agreement is observed on average at the 0.2% level between measured and Monte Carlo calculated k(Q) factors. Measurements indicate that the behavior of these chambers is not adequate for their use for reference dosimetry of high-energy photon beams without a more extensive QA program than currently used for cylindrical reference-class ion chambers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations58
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207