MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2047039925 · doi:10.1118/1.4894902

Poster — Thur Eve — 42: Radiochromic film calibration for low‐energy seed brachytherapy dose measurement

2014· article· en· W2047039925 on OpenAlexaff
Hali Morrison, Geetha Menon, Ron S. Sloboda

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomCalibrationBrachytherapyDosimetryMaterials scienceOpticsCalibration curveScannerNuclear medicineIrradiationRadiationDose profileRange (aeronautics)PhysicsRadiation therapyMathematicsNuclear physicsMedicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of radiochromic film calibration procedures used in external beam radiotherapy when applied to I‐125 brachytherapy sources delivering higher doses, and to determine any necessary modifications to achieve similar accuracy in absolute dose measurements. GafChromic EBT3 film was used to measure radiation doses upwards of 35 Gy from 6 MV, 75 kVp and (∼28 keV) I‐125 photon sources. A custom phantom was used for the I‐125 irradiations to obtain a larger film area with nearly constant dose to reduce the effects of film heterogeneities on the optical density (OD) measurements. RGB transmission images were obtained with an Epson 10000XL flatbed scanner, and calibration curves relating OD and dose using a rational function were determined for each colour channel and at each energy using a non‐linear least square minimization method. Differences found between the 6 MV calibration curve and those for the lower energy sources are large enough that 6 MV beams should not be used to calibrate film for low‐energy sources. However, differences between the 75 kVp and I‐125 calibration curves were quite small; indicating that 75 kVp is a good choice. Compared with I‐125 irradiation, this gives the advantages of lower type B uncertainties and markedly reduced irradiation time. To obtain high accuracy calibration for the dose range up to 35 Gy, two‐segment piece‐wise fitting was required. This yielded absolute dose measurement accuracy above 1 Gy of ∼2% for 75 kVp and ∼5% for I‐125 seed exposures.

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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.260
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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