MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Application of TEPC Microdosimetry to Boron Neutron Capture Therapy

2002· article· en· W2094149944 on OpenAlexaff
J. Burneister, C. Kota, Richard L. Maughan, A.J. Waker, K. J. Riley, Lucian Wielopolski

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBoron Compounds in Chemistry
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsNeutron captureNeutronDosimetryProton therapyMaterials scienceBoronProportional counterAbsorbed doseCharged particlePhysicsNuclear medicineMedical physicsRadiochemistryNuclear physicsProtonOpticsMedicineChemistryDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) is a bimodal radiation therapy used primarily for highly malignant gliomas. Tissue-equivalent proportional counter (TEPC) microdosimetry has proven an ideal dosimetry technique for BNCT, facilitating accurate separation of the photon and neutron absorbed dose components, assessment of radiation quality and measurement of the BNC dose. A miniature dual-TEPC system has been constructed to facilitate microdosimetry measurements with excellent spatial resolution in high-flux clinical neutron capture therapy beams. A 10B-loaded TEPC allows direct measurement of the secondary charged particle spectrum resulting from the BNC reaction. A matching TEPC fabricated from brain-tissue-equivalent plastic allows evaluation of secondary charged particle spectra from photon and neutron interactions in normal brain tissue. Microdosimetric measurements performed in clinical BNCT beams using these novel miniature TEPCs are presented, and the advantages of this technique for such applications are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation Protection DosimetrySame topicBoron Compounds in ChemistryFrench-language works237,207