MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108555295 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/57/16/5141

Monte Carlo modelling of diode detectors for small field MV photon dosimetry: detector model simplification and the sensitivity of correction factors to source parameterization

2012· article· en· W2108555295 on OpenAlexaff
Gavin Cranmer‐Sargison, S. Weston, J A Evans, Narinder Sidhu, David Thwaites

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorDiodeDosimetryCollimated lightMonte Carlo methodOpticsPhysicsElectromagnetic shieldingShielded cableSensitivity (control systems)Computational physicsOptoelectronicsNuclear medicineElectronic engineeringElectrical engineeringMathematicsLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this work was to examine the use of simplified diode detector models within a recently proposed Monte Carlo (MC) based small field dosimetry formalism and to investigate the influence of electron source parameterization has on MC calculated correction factors. BEAMnrc was used to model Varian 6 MV jaw-collimated square field sizes down to 0.5 cm. The IBA stereotactic field diode (SFD), PTW T60016 (shielded) and PTW T60017 (un-shielded) diodes were modelled in DOSRZnrc and isocentric output ratios (OR(fclin)(detMC)) calculated at depths of d = 1.5, 5.0 and 10.0 cm. Simplified detector models were then tested by evaluating the percent difference in (OR(fclin)(detMC)) between the simplified and complete detector models. The influence of active volume dimension on simulated output ratio and response factor was also investigated. The sensitivity of each MC calculated replacement correction factor (k(fclin,fmsr)(Qclin,Qmsr)), as a function of electron FWHM between 0.100 and 0.150 cm and energy between 5.5 and 6.5 MeV, was investigated for the same set of small field sizes using the simplified detector models. The SFD diode can be approximated simply as a silicon chip in water, the T60016 shielded diode can be modelled as a chip in water plus the entire shielding geometry and the T60017 unshielded diode as a chip in water plus the filter plate located upstream. The detector-specific (k(fclin,fmsr)(Qclin,Qmsr)), required to correct measured output ratios using the SFD, T60016 and T60017 diode detectors are insensitive to incident electron energy between 5.5 and 6.5 MeV and spot size variation between FWHM = 0.100 and 0.150 cm. Three general conclusions come out of this work: (1) detector models can be simplified to produce OR(fclin)(detMC) to within 1.0% of those calculated using the complete geometry, where typically not only the silicon chip, but also any high density components close to the chip, such as scattering plates or shielding material is necessary to be included in the model, (2) diode detectors of smaller active radius require less of a correction and (3) (k(fclin,fmsr)(Qclin,Qmsr)) is insensitive to the incident the electron energy and spot size variations investigated. Therefore, simplified detector models can be used with acceptable accuracy within the recently proposed small field dosimetry formalism.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations67
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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