Comparison of two methods to compute the absorbed dose to water for photon beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-validation was performed between an in-house dose-to-water (D(water)) calculation method used at Virginia Commonwealth University and the VMC++ D(water) calculation during particle transport. The effect of Monte Carlo statistical precision was observed. The results of the two calculations on homogeneous phantoms with densities varying from 0.3 g cm(-3) to 2.95 g cm(-3) were compared. Depth and field size dependence were tested. D(water) calculations were compared in a bone-lung-bone phantom to observe how the calculations differed in steep density gradients. The methods were compared for five prostate and five head-and-neck (H/N) patient cases as well. In all phantom tests, the differences between the two D(water) calculations were less than 1%. The largest differences in patient cases was a prostate case in which 1% of the voxels with doses greater than 50% of the maximum dose had a systematic difference corresponding to 1.16% of the maximum dose. All differences were clinically insignificant.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".