MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080139867 · doi:10.1118/1.4738964

Validating plastic scintillation detectors for photon dosimetry in the radiologic energy range

2012· article· en· W2080139867 on OpenAlexafffund
F. Lessard, Louis Archambault, M. Plamondon, Philippe Després, François Therriault‐Proulx, Sam Beddar, Luc Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de Québec
FundersUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistère de la SantéMinistère de la Santé et des Services sociaux
KeywordsDosimetryOpticsIonization chamberScintillationMonte Carlo methodPhotonDetectorPhysicsPhotodiodeDose profileDosimeterAvalanche photodiodeMaterials scienceBeam (structure)IonizationRadiationNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Photon dosimetry in the kilovolt (kV) energy range represents a major challenge for diagnostic and interventional radiology and superficial therapy. Plastic scintillation detectors (PSDs) are potentially good candidates for this task. This study proposes a simple way to obtain accurate correction factors to compensate for the response of PSDs to photon energies between 80 and 150 kVp. The performance of PSDs is also investigated to determine their potential usefulness in the diagnostic energy range. METHODS: A 1-mm-diameter, 10-mm-long PSD was irradiated by a Therapax SXT 150 unit using five different beam qualities made of tube potentials ranging from 80 to 150 kVp and filtration thickness ranging from 0.8 to 0.2 mmAl + 1.0 mmCu. The light emitted by the detector was collected using an 8-m-long optical fiber and a polychromatic photodiode, which converted the scintillation photons to an electrical current. The PSD response was compared with the reference free air dose rate measured with a calibrated Farmer NE2571 ionization chamber. PSD measurements were corrected using spectra-weighted corrections, accounting for mass energy-absorption coefficient differences between the sensitive volumes of the ionization chamber and the PSD, as suggested by large cavity theory (LCT). Beam spectra were obtained from x-ray simulation software and validated experimentally using a CdTe spectrometer. Correction factors were also obtained using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Percent depth dose (PDD) measurements were compensated for beam hardening using the LCT correction method. These PDD measurements were compared with uncorrected PSD data, PDD measurements obtained using Gafchromic films, Monte Carlo simulations, and previous data. RESULTS: For each beam quality used, the authors observed an increase of the energy response with effective energy when no correction was applied to the PSD response. Using the LCT correction, the PSD response was almost energy independent, with a residual 2.1% coefficient of variation (COV) over the 80-150-kVp energy range. Monte Carlo corrections reduced the COV to 1.4% over this energy range. All PDD measurements were in good agreement with one another except for the uncorrected PSD data, in which an over-response was observed with depth (13% at 10 cm with a 100 kVp beam), showing that beam hardening had a non-negligible effect on the PSD response. A correction based on LCT compensated very well for this effect, reducing the over-response to 3%. CONCLUSION: In the diagnostic energy range, PSDs show high-energy dependence, which can be corrected using spectra-weighted mass energy-absorption coefficients, showing no considerable sign of quenching between these energies. Correction factors obtained by Monte Carlo simulations confirm that the approximations made by LCT corrections are valid. Thus, PSDs could be useful for real-time dosimetry in radiology applications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations51
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207