An evaluation of the AAPM-TG43 dosimetry protocol for I-125 brachytherapy seed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The EGSnrc Monte Carlo system has been used to calculate the dose distributions from 125I radioactive seeds (model 6711). The results showed that the agreement between EGSnrc and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group Report 43 (AAPM-TG43) dosimetry protocol is generally within +/-15% for radial distances less than 1.0 cm in both the transverse axis and longitudinal axis of the source. For radial distances between 1.0 and 2.5 cm the agreement between Monte Carlo simulations and the AAPM-TG43 dosimetry protocol is within +/-20%. In the longitudinal axis of the source the difference between Monte Carlo simulations and the AAPM-TG43 dosimetry is up to 40% for radial distances greater than 2.5 cm. The agreement between the EGSnrc/Monte Carlo simulation and the AAPM-TG43 dosimetry protocol improved significantly when recently published data of the anisotropic function were implemented (Weaver 1998 Med. Phys. 25 2271-8). The difference between Monte Carlo simulations and the AAPM-TG43 dosimetry protocol is not more than +/-10% in the transverse axis of the source up to a radius of 2.5 cm. The EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulation and the AAPM-TG43 with the Weaver anisotropic data were also used to investigate the differences in the dose distribution caused by small differences in the construction of individual seeds (Sloboda and Menon 2000 Med. Phys. 27 1789-99). The results show that a change in length of the silver rod containing the 125I radioactive material of 0.14 mm does not affect the dose distribution significantly in the transverse and longitudinal axes but a change of 0.13 mm in the thickness of the welded end of the encapsulation affected the dose significantly in the longitudinal axis of the source.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".