Poster — Thur Eve — 20: CTDI Measurements using a Radiochromic Film‐based clinical protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was evaluating accuracy and reproducibility of a radiochromic film‐based protocol to measure computer tomography dose index (CTDI) as a part of annual QA on CT scanners and kV‐CBCT systems attached to linear accelerators. Energy dependence of Gafchromic XR‐QA2 ® film model was tested over imaging beam qualities (50 – 140 kVp). Film pieces were irradiated in air to known values of air‐kerma (up to 10 cGy). Calibration curves for each beam quality were created (Film reflectance change Vs. Air‐kerma in air). Film responses for same air‐kerma values were compared. Film strips were placed into holes of a CTDI phantom and irradiated for several clinical scanning protocols. Film reflectance change was converted into dose to water and used to calculate CTDIvol values. Measured and tabulated CTDIvol values were compared. Average variations of ±5.2% in the mean film reflectance change were observed in the energy range of 80 to 140 keV, and 11.1% between 50 and 140 keV. Measured CTDI values were in average 10% lower than tabulated CTDI values for CT‐simulators, and 44% higher for CBCT systems. Results presented a mean variation for the same machine and protocol of 2.6%. Variation of film response is within ±5% resulting in ±15% systematic error in dose estimation if a single calibration curve is used. Relatively large discrepancy between measured and tabulated CTDI values strongly support the trend towards replacing CTDI value with equilibrium dose measurement in the center of cylindrical phantom, as suggested by TG‐ 111.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".