Poster — Thur Eve — 26: Evaluation of lens dose from anterior electron beams: comparison of Pinnacle and Gafchromic EBT3 film
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this work is twofold: 1) to measure dose profiles under lead shielding at the level of the lens for a range of clinical electron energies via film dosimetry; and, 2) to assess the validity of the Pinnacle treatment planning system (TPS) in calculating the penumbral doses under lead shielding with the heterogeneous electron algorithm. First, a film calibration curve that spanned the electron energies of interest, 6–18MeV, was created. Next, EBT3 film and lead shielding were incorporated into a solid water phantom with the film positioned 7mm below the lead and a variable thickness of bolus on top. This geometry was reproduced in the Pinnacle TPS and used to calculate dose profiles using the heterogeneous electron algorithm. The measured vs. calculated dose profiles were normalized to dmax in a homogeneous phantom with no lead shielding and compared. Pinnacle consistently overestimated the dose distal to the lead shielding with significant discrepancies occurring near the edge of the lead shield reaching 25% at the edge and 35% in the open field region. The film measurements showed that a minimum lead margin of 5mm extending beyond the diameter of the lens is required to adequately shield the lens to ≤10% of the dose at dmax. These measurements allow for a reasonable estimate of the dose to the lens from anterior electron beams. They also allow for clinicians to assess the extent of the lead margin required to reduce the lens dose to an acceptable amount prior to radiotherapy treatment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".