MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061834428 · doi:10.1118/1.3613370

WE‐E‐BRB‐03: Extracting Energy Fluence Distributions of X‐Rays Produced by Megavoltage Electron Beams Stopping in Thick Targets from Lateral Profiles Measured Using Ionization Chambers

2011· article· en· W2061834428 on OpenAlexaff
C Cojocaru, C. K. Ross, M McEwen, Bruce Faddegon

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluenceIonizationMonte Carlo methodIonization chamberStopping powerElectronAtomic physicsBeam (structure)Absorbed doseMaterials scienceDosimetryPhysicsOpticsIrradiationRadiationNuclear physicsNuclear medicineIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To develop a method of extracting energy fluence distributions of x‐rays produced by megavoltage electron beams stopping in thick targets from lateral profiles measured using ionization chambers. Methods: High accuracy x‐ray lateral profiles measured using various ionization chambers with a set of build‐up caps for a number of target materials were recently reported. It was possible to extract energy fluence distributions from these profiles by using Monte Carlo calculations. The conversion factor was calculated as the ratio between the MC calculated energy fluence (using FLURZnrc) and the MC calculated absorbed dose in the air cavity of the ionization chamber (using “cavity”) at each position. The “measured” energy fluence lateral distribution was then obtained by multiplying the measured absorbed dose with these coefficients point by point, for each build‐up cap. The geometry, beam and material properties were simulated with BEAMnrc. The “cavity” user code was used to score the absorbed dose in the ionization chamber air cavity per incident electron up to angles of 25°. The energy fluence calculations were performed using the EGSnrc user code FLURZnrc. Results: The conversion factors for the PMMA build‐up caps were different by up to 40 % from those for the hevimet caps. However, when converting to energy fluence, for all targets the agreement between the energy fluence distributions obtained with each of the six build‐up caps was better than 1 %. The final energy fluence distribution for a particular target was obtained by averaging the distributions obtained for all six build‐up caps. Conclusions: The present study showed that it is possible to extract energy fluence distributions from x‐ray lateral in‐air profiles measured using commonly used Farmer type ionization chambers with various build‐up caps. The uncertainty on the distributions was better than 1 %. Partial support from NIH R01 CA104777‐01A2.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207