MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101564026 · doi:10.1118/1.3213094

Replacement correction factors for cylindrical ion chambers in electron beams

2009· article· en· W2101564026 on OpenAlexafffund
L. L. W. Wang, D. W. O. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodDosimetryFluenceElectronPhysicsImaging phantomCalibrationAtomic physicsComputational physicsIrradiationOpticsNuclear medicineNuclear physicsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: In the TG-21 dosimetry protocol, for cylindrical chambers in electron beams the replacement correction factor Prepl (or the product PdisPcav in the IAEA's notation), was conceptually separated into two components: the gradient correction (Pgr) accounting for the effective point of measurement and the fluence correction (Pfl) dealing with the change in the electron fluence spectrum. At the depth of maximum dose (dmax), Pgr is taken as 1. There are experimental data available at dmax for the values of Pfl (or Prepl). In the TG-51 dosimetry protocol, the calibration is at the reference depth dref=0.6R50-0.1 (cm) where Pgr is required for cylindrical chambers and Pfl is unknown and so the measured values at dmax are used with the corresponding mean electron energy at dref. Monte Carlo simulations are employed in this study to investigate the replacement correction factors for cylindrical chambers in electron beams. METHODS: Using previously established Monte Carlo calculation methods, the values of Prepl and Pfl are calculated with high statistical precision (<0.1%) for cylindrical cavities of a variety of diameters and lengths in a water phantom irradiated by various electron beams. The values of Pgr as defined in the TG-51 dosimetry protocol are also calculated. RESULTS: The calculated values of the fluence correction factors Pfl are in good agreement with the measured values when the wall correction factors are taken into account for the plane-parallel chambers used in the measurements. An empirical formula for Pfl for cylindrical chambers at dref in electron beams is derived as a function of the chamber radius and the beam quality specifier R50. CONCLUSIONS: The mean electron energy at depth is a good beam quality specifier for Pfl. Thus TG-51's adoption of Pfl at dmax with the same mean electron energy for use at dref is proven to be accurate. The values of Pgr for a Farmer-type chamber as defined in the TG-51 dosimetry protocol may be wrong by 0.3% for high-energy electron beams and by more than 1% for low-energy electron beams.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207