MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2078677211 · doi:10.1118/1.4740104

Sci-Thur PM: YIS - 07: Monte Carlo simulations to obtain several parameters required for electron beam dosimetry

2012· article· en· W2078677211 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan Muir, D. W. O. Rogers, M McEwen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimetryMonte Carlo methodIonization chamberLaser beam qualityAbsorbed dosePhysicsBeam (structure)PhotonElectronComputational physicsMaterials scienceOpticsAtomic physicsIonNuclear physicsNuclear medicineIonizationMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When current dosimetry protocols were written, electron beam data were limited and had uncertainties that were unacceptable for reference dosimetry. Protocols for high-energy reference dosimetry are currently being updated leading to considerable interest in accurate electron beam data. To this end, Monte Carlo simulations using the EGSnrc user-code egs_chamber are performed to extract relevant data for reference beam dosimetry. Calculations of the absorbed dose to water and the absorbed dose to the gas in realistic ion chamber models are performed as a function of depth in water for cobalt-60 and high-energy electron beams between 4 and 22 MeV. These calculations are used to extract several of the parameters required for electron beam dosimetry — the beam quality specifier, R50, beam quality conversion factors, kQ and kR50, the electron quality conversion factor, k′R50, the photon-electron conversion factor, kecal, and ion chamber perturbation factors, PQ. The method used has the advantage that many important parameters can be extracted as a function of depth instead of determination at only the reference depth as has typically been done. Results obtained here are in good agreement with measured and other calculated results. The photon-electron conversion factors obtained for a Farmer-type NE2571 and plane-parallel PTW Roos, IBA NACP-02 and Exradin A11 chambers are 0.903, 0.896, 0.894 and 0.906, respectively. These typically differ by less than 0.7% from the contentious TG-51 values but have much smaller systematic uncertainties. These results are valuable for reference dosimetry of high-energy electron beams.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→