The response of prototype plane‐parallel ionization chambers in small megavoltage x‐ray fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate small-field dosimetry has become important with the use of multiple small fields in modern radiotherapy treatments such as IMRT and stereotactic radiosurgery. In this study, we investigate the response of a set of prototype plane-parallel ionization chambers, based upon the Exradin T11 chamber, with active volume diameters of 2, 4, 10, and 20 mm, exposed to 6 MV stereotactic radiotherapy x-ray fields. Our goal was to assess their usefulness for accurate small x-ray field dose measurements. The relative ionization response was measured in circular fields (0.5 to 4 cm diameter) as compared to a 10 x 10 cm2 reference field. A large discrepancy (approximately 40%) was found between the relative response in the smallest plane-parallel chamber and other small volume dosimeters (radiochromic film, micro-metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor and diode) used for comparison. Monte Carlo BEAMnrc simulations were used to simulate the experimental setup in order to investigate the cause of the under-response and to calculate appropriate correction factors that could be applied to experimental measurements. It was found that in small fields, the air cavity of these custom-made research chambers perturbed the secondary electron fluence profile significantly, resulting in decreased fluence within the active volume, which in turn produces a chamber under-response. It is demonstrated that a large correction to the p(fl) correction factor would be required to improve dosimetric accuracy in small fields, and that these factors could be derived using Monte Carlo simulations.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".