MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032676856 · doi:10.1118/1.1861412

Calculation of photon energy deposition kernels and electron dose point kernels in water

2005· article· en· W2032676856 on OpenAlexaff
Ernesto Mainegra‐Hing, D. W. O. Rogers, I. Kawrakow

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotonPhysicsElectronImaging phantomDosimetryCompton scatteringAbsorbed dosePhoton energyAtomic physicsComputational physicsRayleigh scatteringRange (aeronautics)IrradiationOpticsNuclear physicsMaterials scienceNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effects of changes in the physics of EGSnrc compared to EGS4/PRESTA on energy deposition kernels for monoenergetic photons and on dose point kernels for beta sources in water are investigated. In the diagnostic energy range, Compton binding corrections were found to increase the primary energy fraction up to 4.5% at 30 keV with a corresponding reduction of the scatter component of the kernels. Rayleigh scattered photons significantly increase the scatter component of the kernels and reduce the primary energy fraction with a maximum 12% reduction also at 30 keV where the Rayleigh cross section in water has its maximum value. Sampling the photo-electron angular distribution produces a redistribution of the energy deposited by primaries around the interaction site causing differences of up to 2.7 times in the backscattered energy fraction at 20 keV. Above the pair production threshold, the dose distribution versus angle of the primary dose component is significantly different from the EGS4 results. This is related to the more accurate angular sampling of the electron-positron pair direction in EGSnrc as opposed to using a fixed angle approximation in default EGS4. Total energy fractions for photon beams obtained with EGSnrc and EGS4 are almost the same within 0.2%. This fact suggests that the estimate of the total dose at a given point inside an infinite homogeneous water phantom irradiated by broad beams of photons will be very similar for kernels calculated with both codes. However, at interfaces or near boundaries results can be very different especially in the diagnostic energy range. EGSnrc calculated kernels for monoenergetic electrons (50 keV, 100 keV, and 1 MeV) and beta spectra (32P and 90Y) are in excellent agreement with reported EGS4 values except at 1 MeV where inclusion of spin effects in EGSnrc produces an increase of the effective range of electrons. Comparison at 1 MeV with an ETRAN calculation of the electron dose point kernel shows excellent agreement.

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 score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations71
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207