TH-D-BRB-02: Dose Comparison Study of a 2D Scintillating Fiber Dosimeter Array Prototype with Ionization Chamber and Film Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To present results from a dose comparison study of a 2D scintillation fiber dosimeter array (SFDA) prototype with ionization chamber and film measurements. Method and Materials: The SFDA prototype consist in 729 scintillation fiber dosimeters insert up in a solid water slab (Plastic Water DT, Radiation Products Design Inc.) with a uniform spacing of 1 cm, covering a 26 cm by 26 cm region. Each detector consist in a 1 mm diameter and 2.5 mm long polystyrene plastic scintillating fiber (BFC-12, Saint-Gobain, Inc.) coupled to a 2.5 m long acrylic plastic optical fiber (Eska, Mitsubishi). Subtractions of the parasite Cerenkov signal produce in the optical fibers has been done using a spectral discrimination technique. The calibration of the 729 detectors was performed using dose profiles of a 30×30 cm2 6MV photon field measured with an IC-10 ionization chamber. The comparison of the SFDA response with ionization chamber measurements has been done with a dose profile produced by a simple 10×10 cm2 6MV photon beam. The comparison of the SFDA and film measurements has been done with a strong gradient dose distribution produced by a combination of three 6MV photon fields. Results: Results from the comparison of the SFDA and ionization chamber measurements using a 10×10 cm2 field show that most detectors of the array are in agreement with the IC-10 measurements within 1% of the maximum dose for both in-field and out-of-field regions. The comparison of the SFDA and film measurements using a complex dose distribution show that these two detectors are in agreement within less than 2% of the maximum dose. Conclusion: The SFDA measurements show good agreement with conventional detectors. This dosimeter array could potentially be use as a quality assurance tool for IMRT and arc therapy patient plan verification.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".