Experimental verification of the application of lateral buildup ratio on the 4‐MeV electron beam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".