MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047574222 · doi:10.1120/jacmp.v7i1.2153

Experimental verification of the application of lateral buildup ratio on the 4‐MeV electron beam

2006· article· en· W2047574222 on OpenAlexaff
James C. L. Chow, Scott Newman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsGrand River HospitalUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeam (structure)Cathode rayRange (aeronautics)ElectronLinear particle acceleratorOpticsDiodeMaterials sciencePhysicsAtomic physicsNuclear physicsOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lateral buildup ratio (LBR) used to estimate the depth dose distribution of electron beams for an irregular cutout field was obtained for a 4-MeV energy beam from a Varian 21 EX linear accelerator. The depth-dose curves for a group of circular cutout fields starting from a 2-cm diameter were measured. Electron diodes were used in a large water tank to measure the LBR values for 6, 9, 12, and 16 MeV electron beam energies and a 10 x 10 cm2 applicator. The results agreed with the published data. When the same equipment, setup, and technique were used to determine the LBR values for the 4-MeV energy beam, the values were only reasonable, being within the clinical treatment range (i.e., LBR < 1) for the smallest 6 x 6 cm2 applicator. The calculated LBR values were clinically unacceptable for the circular cutout fields with a diameter larger than 2 cm with the 10 x 10 cm2 applicator. The difficulty in the LBR measurement may be due to the significant contribution of scattered electrons from the beam defining system. This study also focused on how well the sigma values for the 4-MeV beam can predict depth-dose curves for other field sizes and whether the values are applicator-dependent.

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)0.001
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 score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207