Implementing a newly proposed Monte Carlo based small field dosimetry formalism for a comprehensive set of diode detectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of this work was to implement a recently proposed small field dosimetry formalism [Alfonso et al., Med. Phys. 35(12), 5179-5186 (2008)] for a comprehensive set of diode detectors and provide the required Monte Carlo generated factors to correct measurement. METHODS: Jaw collimated square small field sizes of side 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, and 3.0 cm normalized to a reference field of 5.0 cm × 5.0 cm were used throughout this study. Initial linac modeling was performed with electron source parameters at 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2 MeV with the Gaussian FWHM decreased in steps of 0.010 cm from 0.150 to 0.100 cm. DOSRZnrc was used to develop models of the IBA stereotactic field diode (SFD) as well as the PTW T60008, T60012, T60016, and T60017 field diodes. Simulations were run and isocentric, detector specific, output ratios (OR(det)) calculated at depths of 1.5, 5.0, and 10.0 cm. This was performed using the following source parameter subset: 6.1 and 6.2 MeV with a FWHM = 0.100, 0.110, and 0.120 cm. The source parameters were finalized by comparing experimental detector specific output ratios with simulation. Simulations were then run with the active volume and surrounding materials set to water and the replacement correction factors calculated according to the newly proposed formalism. RESULTS: In all cases, the experimental field size widths (at the 50% level) were found to be smaller than the nominal, and therefore, the simulated field sizes were adjusted accordingly. At a FWHM = 0.150 cm simulation produced penumbral widths that were too broad. The fit improved as the FWHM was decreased, yet for all but the smallest field size worsened again at a FWHM = 0.100 cm. The simulated OR(det) were found to be greater than, equivalent to and less than experiment for spot size FWHM = 0.100, 0.110, and 0.120 cm, respectively. This is due to the change in source occlusion as a function of FWHM and field size. The corrections required for the 0.5 cm field size were 0.95 (± 1.0%) for the SFD, T60012 and T60017 diodes and 0.90 (± 1.0%) for the T60008 and T60016 diodes-indicating measured output ratios to be 5% and 10% high, respectively. Our results also revealed the correction factors to be the same within statistical variation at all depths considered. CONCLUSIONS: A number of general conclusions are evident: (1) small field OR(det) are very sensitive to the simulated source parameters, and therefore, rigorous Monte Carlo linac model commissioning, with respect to measurement, must be pursued prior to use, (2) backscattered dose to the monitor chamber should be included in simulated OR(det) calculations, (3) the corrections required for diode detectors are design dependent and therefore detailed detector modeling is required, and (4) the reported detector specific correction factors may be applied to experimental small field OR(det) consistent with those presented here.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".