MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090747314 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/52/1/n01

Electron radiotherapy: a study on dosimetric uncertainty using small cutouts

2006· article· en· W2090747314 on OpenAlexaff
James C. L. Chow, Grigor N. Grigorov

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsGrand River HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WaterlooUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodBeam (structure)Cathode rayPhysicsLinear particle acceleratorNuclear medicineElectronLine (geometry)OpticsNuclear physicsMedicineMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This note investigated the dosimetric uncertainties due to the positional error when centring a small cutout to the machine central beam axis (CAX) in electron radiotherapy. A group of six circular cutouts with 4 cm diameter were made with their centres shifting 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 mm from the machine CAX for the 6 x 6 cm(2) applicator. The per cent depth doses, beam profiles and output factors were measured using the 4, 9 and 16 MeV clinical electron beams produced by a Varian 21 EX linear accelerator. The 2D isodose distributions in the z-x (or cross-line) and z-y (or in-line) plane were calculated by Monte Carlo simulation using the EGSnrc system. When the cutout centre was shifted away from the machine CAX for the 4 MeV beam, the d(m), R(80) and R(90) at the machine CAX had no significant change (<0.1 mm). For higher energies of 9 and 16 MeV beams, the d(m) was reduced by 0.45 and 1.63 mm per mm, between the cutout centre and the machine CAX with off-axis shift <6 mm respectively. R(80) and R(90) were reduced by more than 0.3 mm per mm off-axis shift for both energies. The isodose coverage of the in-line axis beam profile was reduced when the cutout centre was shifted away from machine CAX. It is important for oncology staff to note such dosimetric changes in the clinical electron radiotherapy, particularly when a high energy electron beam is used for small cutout. Such positional uncertainty is unavoidable in fabricating an electron cutout in the mould room.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207