Dosimetry of beta‐ray ophthalmic applicators: Comparison of different measurement methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An international intercomparison of the dosimetry of three beta particle emitting ophthalmic applicators was performed, which involved measurements with radiochromic film, thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs), alanine pellets, plastic scintillators, extrapolation ionization chambers, a small fixed-volume ionization chambers, a diode detector and a diamond detector. The sources studied were planar applicators of 90Sr-90Y and 106Ru-106Rh, and a concave applicator of 106Ru-106Rh. Comparisons were made of absolute dosimetry determined at 1 mm from the source surface in water or water-equivalent plastic, and relative dosimetry along and perpendicular to the source axes. The results of the intercomparison indicate that the various methods yield consistent absolute dosimetry results at the level of 10%-14% (one standard deviation) depending on the source. For relative dosimetry along the source axis at depths of 5 mm or less, the agreement was 3%-9% (one standard deviation) depending on the source and the depth. Crucial to the proper interpretation of the measurement results is an accurate knowledge of the detector geometry, i.e., sensitive volume and amount of insensitive covering material. From the results of these measurements, functions which describe the relative dose rate along and perpendicular to the source axes are suggested.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".