Technical Note: Potential errors in optical density measurements due to scanning side in EBT and EBT2 Gafchromic film dosimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine the effect on the measured optical density of scanning on either side of a Gafchromic EBT and EBT2 film using an Epson (Epson Canada Ltd., Toronto, Ontario) 10000XL flat bed scanner. METHODS: Calibration curves were constructed using EBT2 film scanned in landscape orientation in both reflection and transmission mode on an Epson 10000XL scanner. Calibration curves were also constructed using EBT film. Potential errors due to an optical density difference from scanning the film on either side ("face up" or "face down") were simulated. RESULTS: Scanning the film face up or face down on the scanner bed while keeping the film angular orientation constant affects the measured optical density when scanning in reflection mode. In contrast, no statistically significant effect was seen when scanning in transmission mode. This effect can significantly affect relative and absolute dose measurements. As an application example, the authors demonstrate potential errors of 17.8% by inverting the film scanning side on the gamma index for 3%-3 mm criteria on a head and neck intensity modulated radiotherapy plan, and errors in absolute dose measurements ranging from 10% to 35% between 2 and 5 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: Process consistency is the key to obtaining accurate and precise results in Gafchromic film dosimetry. When scanning in reflection mode, care must be taken to place the film consistently on the same side on the scanner bed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".