Characterizing the response of miniature scintillation detectors when irradiated with proton beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing a plastic scintillation detector for proton radiation therapy requires careful consideration. Most of the plastic scintillators should not perturb a proton beam if they are sufficiently small but may exhibit some energy dependence due to the quenching effect. In this work, we studied the factors that would affect the performance of such scintillation detectors. We performed Monte Carlo simulations of proton beams with energies between 50 and 250 MeV to study signal amplitude, water equivalence, spatial resolution and quenching of light output. Implementation of the quenching effect in the Monte Carlo simulations was then compared with prior experimental data for validation. The signal amplitude of a plastic scintillating fiber detector was on the order of 300 photons per MeV of energy deposited in the detector, corresponding to a power of about 30 pW at a proton dose rate of 100 cGy min(-1). The signal amplitude could be increased by up to a factor of 2 with reflective coating. We also found that Cerenkov light was not a significant source of noise. Dose deposited in the plastic scintillator was within 2% of the dose deposited in a similar volume of water throughout the whole depth-dose curve for protons with energies higher than 50 MeV. A scintillation detector with a radius of 0.5 mm offers a sufficient spatial resolution for use with a proton beam of 100 MeV or more. The main disadvantage of plastic scintillators when irradiated by protons was the quenching effect, which reduced the amount of scintillation and resulted in dose underestimation by close to 30% at the Bragg peak for beams of 150 MeV or more. However, the level of quenching was nearly constant throughout the proximal half of the depth-dose curve for all proton energies considered. We therefore conclude that it is possible to construct an effective detector to overcome the problems traditionally encountered in proton dosimetry. Scintillation detectors could be used for surface or shallow measurements with a single calibration for specific beam energy. For deeper measurements, Monte Carlo simulations can be used to generate depth-dependent correction factors.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".