MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092700576 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/55/3/016

An investigation of backscatter factors for kilovoltage x-rays: a comparison between Monte Carlo simulations and Gafchromic EBT film measurements

2010· article· en· W2092700576 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jeesun Kim, Robin Hill, Elizabeth Claridge Mackonis, Zdenka Kuncic

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsBackscatter (email)Monte Carlo methodDosimetryPhysicsComputational physicsMaterials scienceNuclear medicineStatisticsMedicineComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Backscatter factors are important parameters in the determination of dose for kilovoltage x-ray beams. However, backscatter factors are difficult to measure experimentally, and tabulated values are based largely on Monte Carlo calculations. In this study we have determined new backscatter factors by both experimental and Monte Carlo methods, and compared them with existing backscatter factors published in the AAPM TG-61 protocol. The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to evaluate the overall effectiveness of using Gafchromic EBT film for backscatter factor measurements and (2) to determine whether existing Monte Carlo-calculated backscatter factors need to be updated. We measured backscatter factors using Gafchromic EBT film for three field sizes (2, 4 and 6 cm diameter cones) and three kilovoltage beam qualities, including 280 kVp for which similar measurements have not previously been reported. We also present new Monte Carlo-calculated backscatter factors obtained using the EGSnrc/BEAMnrc code system to simulate the Pantak kilovoltage x-ray unit used in our measurements. The results were compared with backscatter factors tabulated in the AAPM TG-61 protocol for kilovoltage x-ray dosimetry. The largest difference between our measured and calculated backscatter factors and the AAPM TG-61 values was found to be 2.5%. This agreement is remarkably good, considering that the AAPM TG-61 values consist of a combination of experimental and Monte Carlo calculations obtained over 20 years ago using different measurement techniques, as well as older Monte Carlo code and cross-section data. Furthermore, our Monte Carlo-calculated backscatter factors agree within 1% with the AAPM TG-61 values for all beam qualities and field sizes. Our Gafchromic film measurements had slightly larger differences with the AAPM TG-61 backscatter factors, up to approximately 2% for the 6 cm diameter cone at a beam quality of 50 kVp. The largest difference in backscatter factors, of 2.5%, was found between Monte Carlo-calculated and Gafchromic film-measured data for the 100 kVp x-ray beam with the 4 cm diameter cone. The differences in backscatter factors between the three data sets (measurements, calculations and published values) are all within the uncertainties from our Gafchromic film measurements and Monte Carlo calculations. Our results demonstrate the suitability of using Gafchromic EBT film to measure equipment-specific backscatter factors for kilovoltage x-ray beams over the entire energy range and also confirm that backscatter factors published in kilovoltage dosimetry protocols still remain valid.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations39
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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