A comparison of organ doses between mathematical and voxel phantoms with the DS02 photon fluences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to quantify dosimetric differences if modern sophisticated voxel phantoms were used in the dosimetry system DS02 rather than the mathematical phantoms. The mathematical models (ADAM and EVA) and voxel phantoms (REX and REGINA) developed in Germany allow a useful comparison as they are very close in body weight, body height and organ masses. In this study, organ doses are calculated with published fluence-to-absorbed-dose conversion coefficients derived from those two model sets for unidirectional plane beam irradiation geometries, with DS02 photon energy spectra at various distances from the hypocentre in Hiroshima. Results showed that organ doses from mathematical models generally agree well with those from voxel phantoms except for a few organs at lateral irradiation geometries and eye lenses at antero-posterior irradiation, even though there were significant differences between the two phantom sets and various uncertainties in dose calculations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it