MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051854703 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/48/12/310

An investigation of entrance surface dose calculations for diagnostic radiology using Monte Carlo simulations and radiotherapy dosimetry formalisms

2003· article· en· W2051854703 on OpenAlexaff
L. Ben Omrane, Frank Verhaegen, N Chahed, S Mtimet

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKermaImaging phantomMonte Carlo methodDosimetryPhotonAbsorbed doseBeam (structure)Materials scienceBackscatter (email)Nuclear medicineOpticsComputational physicsPhoton energyPhysicsMedicineMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our aim in this work was to investigate the methodology used in the determination of the entrance surface dose (ESD) in diagnostic radiology. In kV x-rays for low-energy photons (tube potential up to 160 kV, HVL: 1-8 mm Al), the ESD is based on the use of the ratio of mass-energy absorption coefficients and backscatter factors. A full simulation of the photon and electron transport in a kilovoltage x-ray unit, using the Monte Carlo code BEAM/EGS4, was performed to obtain an accurate beam phase space for use in dose calculation. The modelled phase space was experimentally validated for the beam qualities (measured HVL: 3.3 mm Al-2.2 mm Cu) and showed good agreement between calculated and measured HVLs, air kerma and relative dose distributions. We have computed the conversion factors from air kerma to water or soft tissue absorbed dose at the surface of a phantom for beam qualities (HVL: 3.3-8.35 mm Al). The same model was also used to calculate the ESD in water and in soft tissue for the low-energy photon range considered. The results show that the numerical differences between the air kerma and the water kerma based backscatter factors are insignificant. The same conclusion was reached for the (mu(en)/rho) ratios, for soft tissue to air, evaluated using either the primary photon spectra or the spectra at the surface of a phantom. Furthermore, the good agreement obtained for the computation of the conversion factors with a full BEAM/EGS4 model confirms the previous studies which are based on different sources for the spectral distribution and different beam geometries (pencil beam or point source assumptions). On the other hand, the ESD in water or soft tissue is well described either with the B(air) or the B(w) formalism. Conversion factors from air kerma to ESD in these media are proposed in this work for several beam qualities in diagnostic radiology.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations42
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207