MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029542527 · doi:10.1118/1.4893276

Dose response of selected solid state detectors in applied homogeneous transverse and longitudinal magnetic fields

2014· article· en· W2029542527 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Reynolds, B. G. Fallone, S Rathee

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorImaging phantomPhysicsMagnetic fieldOpticsMonte Carlo methodTransverse planeBeam (structure)Ionization chamberDosimetryComputational physicsNuclear medicineIonization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: MR-Linac devices under development worldwide will require standard calibration, commissioning, and quality assurance. Solid state radiation detectors are often used for dose profiles and percent depth dose measurements. The dose response of selected solid state detectors is therefore evaluated in varying transverse and longitudinal magnetic fields for this purpose. METHODS: The Monte Carlo code PENELOPE was used to model irradiation of a PTW 60003 diamond detector and IBA PFD diode detector in the presence of a magnetic field. The field itself was varied in strength, and oriented both transversely and longitudinally with respect to the incident photon beam. The long axis of the detectors was oriented either parallel or perpendicular to the photon beam. The dose to the active volume of each detector in air was scored, and its ratio to dose with zero magnetic field strength was determined as the "dose response" in magnetic field. Measurements at low fields for both detectors in transverse magnetic fields were taken to evaluate the accuracy of the simulations. Additional simulations were performed in a water phantom to obtain few representative points for beam profile and percent depth dose measurements. RESULTS: Simulations show significant dose response as a function of magnetic field in transverse field geometries. This response can be near 20% at 1.5 T, and it is highly dependent on the detectors' relative orientation to the magnetic field, the energy of the photon beam, and detector composition. Measurements at low transverse magnetic fields verify the simulations for both detectors in their relative orientations to radiation beam. Longitudinal magnetic fields, in contrast, show little dose response, rising slowly with magnetic field, and reaching 0.5%-1% at 1.5 T regardless of detector orientation. Water tank and in air simulation results were the same within simulation uncertainty where lateral electronic equilibrium is present and expectedly differed at the beam edge in transverse field orientations only. Due to the difference in design, the two detectors behaved differently. CONCLUSIONS: When transverse magnetic fields are present, great care must be taken when using diamond or diode detectors. Dose response varies with relative detector orientation, magnetic field strength, and between detectors. This response can be considerable (∼20% for both detectors). Both detectors in longitudinal fields exhibit little to no dose response as a function of magnetic field. Water tank simulations seem to suggest that the diode detector is better suited to general beam commissioning, and each detector must be investigated separately.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 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

Citations66
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207