MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093454376 · doi:10.1118/1.4815268

MO‐D‐134‐10: Using HVL and KVp to Portray An X‐Ray Source for Dose Calculations in CT

2013· article· en· W2093454376 on OpenAlexaff
M Sommerville, Yannick Poirier, Alexei Kouznetsov, Mauro Tambasco

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomIonization chamberScannerAttenuationPhotonNuclear medicinePhysicsDose profileFluenceOpticsHalf-value layerMaterials scienceRadiationIonizationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To show that the nominal peak tube voltage potential (kVp) and measured half‐value layer (HVL) are sufficient to generate energy spectra and fluence profiles for fast and accurate machine‐specific dose computations in Computed Tomography (CT). Methods: Spatial variation of the x‐ray source spectrum was found by measuring HVL across the internal bowtie filter axis and using the nominal kVp settings and third‐party software Spektr to generate the spectra. The beam fluence was calculated by multiplying in‐air dose measurements along the filter axis with the integral product of the spectra and the in‐air NIST mass‐energy attenuation coefficients. Dose calculations were performed using a previously validated in‐house hybrid deterministic and stochastic kV x‐ray dose computation algorithm (kVDoseCalc). To ensure dose convergence while minimizing calculation time, we examined the sensitivity of kVDoseCalc to the number of photons seeded. We modeled the source of a Philips Brilliance Big Bore CT scanner for 90, 120, and 140 kVp settings. Doses measured using a Farmer‐type Capintec ion chamber (0.6 cc) placed in a cylindrical poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA) phantom were compared to those computed with kVDoseCalc. Results: The number of photons seeded required to keep the average statistical uncertainty in dose less than .1% was found to be 1.25 million. The average percent difference between calculation and measurement pooled over all 12 positions in the phantom was found to be 1.68%, 1.60%, and 1.25% for 90, 120, and 140 kVp, respectively. The maximum percent difference between calculation and measurement was less than 3.64% pooled over all energies and measurement positions. Thirty‐one out of a total of 36 simulation conditions were within the experimental uncertainties associated with measurement reproducibility and chamber volume effects. Conclusion: Our source characterization technique, which derives incident fluence and spectra from measurements of HVL across the bowtie profile, is sufficient for accurate machine‐specific CT dose computations.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207