MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142312597

IMRT point dose measurements with a diamond detector

2005· article· en· W2142312597 on OpenAlexaff
Erin Barnett, M. Mackenzie, B. G. Fallone

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology and Oncology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimeterIonization chamberDosimetryDose profileDetectorDiamondNuclear medicineQuality assuranceMedicineMonitor unitOpticsMedical physicsMaterials sciencePhysicsIon
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Radiation dose distribution calculations used in treatment planning systems (TPS) describe dose deposition well for large fields. For small fields encountered in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) these models may be less accurate. Dose verification of IMRT fields is therefore essential in IMRT implementation and quality assurance. For these smaller fields, lateral electronic equilibrium may not exist and volume averaging effects in ion chambers become increasingly problematic. For this reason, detectors with sensitive volumes smaller than that of conventional ion chambers are preferable in both small fields and high dose gradient region. Diamond detectors are capable of making such accurate dosimetric measurements. Methods. This study compares dosimetry measurements made with a PTW-Freiburg type 60003 diamond detector, an Exradin A12 ion chamber, a PTW-Freiburg PinPoint ion chamber and a Varian aS500 EPID. Dose measurements were made in a clinical prostate intensity modulated beam. Due to difficulties encountered when dosimetric measurements are made in high dose gradient regions, probe positioning within IMRT fields was investigated and a method to establish better probe positions is proposed. Measured doses were compared with HELAX-TMS calculated doses to verify performance of the TPS used in this center. Results. The diamond detector dosimetry is extremely sensitive to positioning particularly in high dose gradient regions. The results indicate that improved agreement between doses measured with various dosimeters can be obtained by appropriate selection of the probe position. Avoidance of high dose gradient regions improves agreement between measured doses particularly for the PinPoint chamber, the diamond detector and the EPID. Conclusions. The use of diamond detectors and EPIDs in dosimetry is an attractive option particularly for verification of IMRT treatments. Although 2D dose verification of IMRT treatments is a more desirable option than point dose verification, an independent check of EPID or film verification is beneficial. Use of a diamond detector is an excellent option for dose measurements in cases where portal imaging devices are not available such as the case of helical tomotherapy.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiology and OncologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207