Experimental measurement of radiological penumbra associated with intermediate energy x‐rays and small radiosurgery field sizes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stereotactic radiosurgery is used to treat intracranial lesions with a high degree of accuracy. At the present time, x-ray energies at or above Co-60 gamma rays are used. Previous Monte Carlo simulations have demonstrated that intermediate energy x-ray photons or IEPs (defined to be photons in the energy range of 0.2-1.2 MeV), combined with small field sizes, produce a reduced radiological penumbra leading to a sharper dose gradient, improved dose homogeneity and sparing of critical anatomy adjacent to the target volume. This hypothesis is based on the fact that, for small x-ray fields, a dose outside the treatment volume is dictated mainly by the range of electrons set into motion by x-ray photons. The purpose of this work is: (1) to produce intermediate energy x rays using a detuned medical linear accelerator, (2) to characterize the energy of this beam, (3) to measure the radiological penumbra for IEPs and small fields to compare with that produced by 6 MV x rays or Co-60, and (4) to compare these experimental measurements with Monte Carlo computer simulations. The maximum photon energy of our IEP x-ray spectrum was measured to be 1.2 MeV. Gafchromic EBT films (ISP Technologies, Wayne, NJ) were irradiated and read using a novel digital microscopy imaging system with high spatial resolution. Under identical irradiation conditions the measured radiological penumbra widths (80%-20% distance), for field sizes ranging from 0.3 x 0.3 to 4.0 x 4.0 cm2, varied from 0.3-0.77 mm (1.2 MV) and from 1.1-2.1 mm (6 MV). Even more dramatic were the differences found when comparing the 90%-10% or the 95%-5% widths, which are in fact more significant in radiotherapy. Monte Carlo simulations agreed well with the experimental findings. The reduction in radiological penumbra could be substantial for specific clinical situations such as in the treatment of an ocular melanoma abutting the macula or for the treatment of functional disorders such as trigeminal neuralgia (a nonlethal neurological pathology) where no long-term side effect should be induced by the 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".