MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2090249540 · doi:10.1118/1.4736190

WE‐G‐BRB‐04: BEST IN PHYSICS (THERAPY) ‐ A Novel Multi‐Point Plastic Scintillation Detector for in Vivo Dosimetry and Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy

2012· article· en· W2090249540 on OpenAlexaff
François Therriault‐Proulx, Luc Beaulieu, Louis Archambault, Sam Beddar

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorScintillationOpticsDosimetryPhysicsIonization chamberCalibrationImaging phantomDose profileBrachytherapySemiconductor detectorPhotonOptical fiberMaterials scienceNuclear medicineIonRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To develop a novel multi-point plastic scintillation detector (mPSD) capable of accurately measuring dose at multiple positions simultaneously with the use of a single optical guide. METHODS: We built a new generation of plastic scintillation detectors composed of multiple scintillating elements along a same optical transmission line. Three different scintillating fibers were optically coupled to a single collecting optical fiber. A primary challenge for this new type of detector is that the output signal is a superposition of multiple scintillation spectra and contaminating elements. Acquisition with a spectrometry setup allows for the implementation of a new hyperspectral approach that accounts for each light-emitting component separately, and allows spectral unmixing. The mPSD and an ion chamber were irradiated in a water phantom with a 6 MV photon beam. Profiles and depth-dose curves were measured and compared between detectors. This detector and the corresponding calibration approach were also applied to Ir- 192 HDR brachytherapy. RESULTS: Doses measured with the mPSD were in good agreement with the ion chamber measurements for external beam irradiations. Average relative differences of (2.3±1.1)%, (1.6±0.4)% and (0.32±0.19)% were observed for each scintillating element. The mPSD measurements tended to be at least as accurate as published measurements from single-point PSDs. For the Ir-192 HDR brachytherapy application, the average difference between the treatment planning system and the measurements were (4.6±1.0)% per dwell-position and (2.1±1.0)% per catheter. The accuracy of each scintillating element was shown to depend on light attenuation and on the similarity of its scintillation spectrum in comparison to the other light emitters. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility and accuracy of mPSDs using a single transmission line was demonstrated. In addition to well-documented advantages of single-point PSDs, the multi-point capability of this single-fiber detector makes mPSDs a very promising new technique for quality assurance and on-line in vivo dosimetry.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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