MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2035844708 · doi:10.1118/1.2244694

Sci‐Sat AM (1) General‐07: Water equivalent dosimeter array for small fields external beam radiotherapy

2006· article· en· W2035844708 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Archambault, A‐M. Frelin, L Gingras, Sam Beddar, Luc Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimeterScintillationScintillatorOpticsIonization chamberOptical fiberDetectorPhysicsDosimetryDose profileBeam (structure)Scintillation counterParticle detectorMaterials scienceRadiationNuclear medicineIonIonization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scintillation dosimeters consisting of a scintillating fiber coupled to an optical fiber and read with a CCD camera have shown accurate dose measurement in external beam radiotherapy. This work presents the next step, which is to investigate the development of a multi‐channel dosimeter array in conjunction with a CCD camera for dose measurement that includes small fields. The light collection of the CCD camera was studied to evaluate the number of detectors that can be read simultaneously. We also looked at possible sources of dose perturbation with a single‐fiber detector surrounded by other optical fibers. We then constructed a prototype array with 10 detectors and compared with measurements taken with small ion chambers. No dose perturbations were seen when a plastic optical fiber was used to transmit the scintillation light to the CCD. Depth dose curves measured in water with a scintillation dosimeter with up to 75 plastic optical fibers in the beam showed no discrepancy to within 0.3% when compared to the same curve taken with an ion chamber and without the plastic fibers. Agreement within 0.6% was seen for output factor measured with the scintillator and the A16 Exradin chamber for fields of 1×1 cm2 and 5×0.5 cm2. The ten‐fiber prototype allowed precise evaluation of profile and depth dose curves in a single irradiation. This work has shown that use of a multi‐channel scintillation dosimeter is feasible. The prototype of 10 detectors produced excellent results and could be extended up to 3000 detectors in the near future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.025

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→