MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031657560 · doi:10.1118/1.2936335

Influence of focal spot on characteristics of very small diameter radiosurgical beams

2008· article· en· W2031657560 on OpenAlexafffund
E Sham, Jan Seuntjens, Slobodan Dević, Ervin B. Podgoršak

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchTerry Fox Foundation
KeywordsOpticsPhysicsLinear particle acceleratorFocal lengthMonte Carlo methodSIGNAL (programming language)Beam (structure)DetectorLens (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Percentage depth dose (PDD) distributions and beam profiles of very small diameter (1.5-5 mm) megavoltage radiosurgical beams calculated with Monte Carlo (MC) technique critically depend on the diameter of the circular focal spot used in the simulation: The smaller is the field diameter, the larger is the effect. Thus, in simulations of radiosurgical fields that have diameters of the order of the focal spot size, an accurate focal spot geometry should be used. We used a simplified moving slit technique in conjunction with a diode detector for evaluation of the focal spot size and shape of a megavoltage 6 MV linac as well as for determination of the equivalent focal spot diameter of the linac for use in MC simulations. The measured total diode signal contains three components: A direct focal spot signal, a background signal, and an extra-focal radiation signal. A single profile scan of the focal spot signal is Gaussian like in shape, and its full width at half maximum is used to define the focal spot dimension for this scan. The focal spot of our 6 MV linac is approximated with a Gaussian circle, and when the geometry of the effective focal spot circle is used in MC simulations, the agreement between MC-calculated and measured PDD distributions as well as beam profiles is good even for radiosurgical fields as small as 1.5 mm in diameter. Our results also confirm that matching the penumbral areas of accurately measured large-field beam profiles to the same areas of the MC-calculated beam profiles reliably leads to a realistic effective focal spot size for use in MC simulations of very small diameter beams.

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 score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations47
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207