MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2073888329 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/49/16/013

Interpolation and extrapolation of dose measurements with different detector sizes to improve the spatial resolution of radiotherapy dosimetry as demonstrated for helical tomotherapy

2004· article· en· W2073888329 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea McNiven, Tomas Kron

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTomotherapyExtrapolationDosimetryIonization chamberOpticsContext (archaeology)Beam (structure)DetectorDose profileInterpolation (computer graphics)Monitor unitImage resolutionNuclear medicineMaterials sciencePhysicsMedical physicsRadiation therapyMathematicsMedicineRadiologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new technique for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivery is helical tomotherapy (HT). Like most IMRT delivery methods, HT utilizes many small fields as part of the treatment plan, which can be difficult to characterize. A novel technique for small field characterization, based on inter- and extrapolation of ion chamber readings, is presented in the context of HT. As a fan beam is characterized by its thickness and output factor, plane parallel chambers with different active volumes were used to scan the fan beam profiles. The fan beam thickness (FBT) can be determined from the thickness measured with the chamber by extrapolating to an infinitesimally small chamber size. The effective output was derived from the integral under the dose profile divided by the FBT. This was done for five FBTs and demonstrated a sharp fall off in dose when the FBT decreased below 8 mm. Similar techniques can be applied to other IMRT techniques to improve the characterization of various beam parameters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and Biology→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→