Effects of glycerol co-solvent on the rate and form of polymer gel dose response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A factor currently limiting the clinical utility of x-ray CT polymer gel dosimetry is the overall low dose sensitivity (and hence low dose resolution) of the system. Hence, active research remains in the investigation of polymer gel formulations with increased CT dose response. An ideal polymer gel dosimeter will exhibit a sensitive CT response which is linear over a suitable dose range, making clinical implementation reasonably straightforward. This study reports on the variations in rate and form of the CT dose response of irradiated polymer gels manufactured with glycerol, which is a co-solvent that permits dissolution of additional bisacrylamide above its water solubility limit (3% by weight). This study focuses on situations where the concentration of bisacrylamide is kept at or below its water solubility limit so that the influence of the co-solvent on the dose response can be explored separately from the effects of increased cross-linker concentration. CT imaging and Raman spectroscopy are used to construct dose-response curves for irradiated gels varying in (i) initial total monomer (%T) and (ii) initial co-solvent concentration. Results indicate that: (i) for a fixed glycerol concentration, gel response increases linearly with %T. Furthermore, the functional form of the dose response remains constant, in agreement with a previous model of polymer formation. (ii) Polymer gels with constant %T and increasing co-solvent concentrations also show enhanced CT response. In addition, the functional form of the response is altered in these gels as co-solvent concentration is increased. Raman data indicate that the fraction of bis-acrylamide incorporated into polymerization, as opposed to cyclization, increases as co-solvent concentration increases. The changes in functional form indicate varying polymer yields (per unit dose), akin to relative fractional monomer/cross-linker (i.e. %C) changes in earlier studies. These results are put into context of the model of polymer formation. The implications of these results on the clinical utility of polymer gels with co-solvent are highlighted.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 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".