Towards a quantitative, measurement-based estimate of the uncertainty in photon mass attenuation coefficients at radiation therapy energies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a quantitative estimate is derived for the uncertainty in the XCOM photon mass attenuation coefficients in the energy range of interest to external beam radiation therapy-i.e. 100 keV (orthovoltage) to 25 MeV-using direct comparisons of experimental data against Monte Carlo models and theoretical XCOM data. Two independent datasets are used. The first dataset is from our recent transmission measurements and the corresponding EGSnrc calculations (Ali et al 2012 Med. Phys. 39 5990-6003) for 10-30 MV photon beams from the research linac at the National Research Council Canada. The attenuators are graphite and lead, with a total of 140 data points and an experimental uncertainty of ∼0.5% (k = 1). An optimum energy-independent cross section scaling factor that minimizes the discrepancies between measurements and calculations is used to deduce cross section uncertainty. The second dataset is from the aggregate of cross section measurements in the literature for graphite and lead (49 experiments, 288 data points). The dataset is compared to the sum of the XCOM data plus the IAEA photonuclear data. Again, an optimum energy-independent cross section scaling factor is used to deduce the cross section uncertainty. Using the average result from the two datasets, the energy-independent cross section uncertainty estimate is 0.5% (68% confidence) and 0.7% (95% confidence). The potential for energy-dependent errors is discussed. Photon cross section uncertainty is shown to be smaller than the current qualitative 'envelope of uncertainty' of the order of 1-2%, as given by Hubbell (1999 Phys. Med. Biol 44 R1-22).
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 | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".