TU‐C‐108‐10: Development of An Absorbed Dose to Water Primary Standard for HDR Ir‐192 Brachytherapy Based On the Fricke Dosimetry System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To develop a Fricke based absorbed dose standard for HDR Ir‐192 brachytherapy that will give a significantly lower uncertainty on the dose to water at 1 cm compared to methods based on air‐kerma standards. Methods: A ring shaped PMMA Fricke holder was developed to allow measurements to be conducted in a water phantom with the Fricke volume centred at 1 cm from the source. The seed was positioned at the ring centre to allow for a uniform irradiation geometry. The radiation chemical yield of Ferric ions, or G‐value, was determined at 250KVp X‐ray and at Co‐60 and a linear interpolation of effective photon energies allowed the determination of the G‐value at Ir‐192. Using this interpolated G‐value the radiation induced change in the Fricke solution's optical density could then be related to the absorbed dose to water at 1 cm. Results: The G‐value experiments yielded values for 250 KVp X‐ray and Co‐60 of 1.56 umol/J and 1.61 umol/J respectively. The uncertainty in the G‐value for Ir‐192 photon energies is estimated to be around ±1%. The absorbed dose to water using the Fricke system was calculated and compared with the value obtained via an air‐kerma measurement and TG‐43 agreement was obtained within the combined uncertainties. An uncertainty analysis of the Fricke system indicates an overall uncertainty of 1.2% to 1.5% (for dose at 1 cm) is achievable. Conclusion: This work demonstrates the ability to reduce the standard uncertainty for Ir‐192 HDR brachytherapy sources by using a Fricke chemical dosimeter that measures the absorbed dose to water directly and allows measurements to be conducted in the quantity of interest. The overall uncertainty is on par, or better than current water calorimetry based methods.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".