MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046526627 · doi:10.1118/1.3612166

SU‐E‐T‐216: Investigation of the System Performance of An Online Dose Verification Device

2011· article· en· W2046526627 on OpenAlexaff
G Asuni, Daniel W. Rickey, Boyd McCurdy

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorIonization chamberCollimatorDosimetryFluenceOpticsMonte Carlo methodNuclear medicineDose profilePhysicsQuality assuranceFull width at half maximumMaterials scienceMedicineMathematicsIonStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To measure the detector response function of an online dose verification device and to validate our measurement by applying the detector response to Monte Carlo (MC) derived incident fluence. Methods: A transmission detector array (IBA Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) was recently developed as an IMRT quality assurance tool. To understand the detector system performance for verification of IMRT fluence, the detector response function at 6MV of a single ion chamber in the detector was measured with a narrow slit collimator. The narrow slit was formed by two 24 × 72 × 152 mm3 lead blocks, which provided a slit of 0.25 × 10 mm2. The LSF of the detector was obtained by laterally translating it in 0.25 mm steps underneath the slit. Two head‐and‐neck IMRT fields were also measured using the device. The same fields were simulated in our BEAMnrc MC model, and the MC incident fluence was convolved with the 2D detector response to obtain calculated dose. The measured and calculated dose distributions were then quantitatively compared using chi comparison (3%/3mm) for in‐field points (defined as those above 10% maximum dose). Results: The FWHM of the measured detector response for a single chamber is 4.3 mm which is comparable to the chamber diameter of 3.8 mm. For both examined IMRT fields, the Chi comparison between measured and calculated data show good agreement with 100% of in‐field points below a chi of 1.0 (chi <0.6 for IMRT field 1 and <0.12 for IMRT field 2). Conclusions: The detector response function for a new novel online detector has been measured at 6 MV using a narrow slit technique. The good comparison shown between measured and calculated dose of the two IMRT fields is a validation of our response function measurement.

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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207