Optical artefact characterization and correction in volumetric scintillation dosimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goals of this study were (1) to characterize the optical artefacts affecting measurement accuracy in a volumetric liquid scintillator detector, and (2) to develop methods to correct for these artefacts. The optical artefacts addressed were photon scattering, refraction, camera perspective, vignetting, lens distortion, the lens point spread function, stray radiation, and noise in the camera. These artefacts were evaluated by theoretical and experimental means, and specific correction strategies were developed for each artefact. The effectiveness of the correction methods was evaluated by comparing raw and corrected images of the scintillation light from proton pencil beams against validated Monte Carlo calculations. Blurring due to the lens and refraction at the scintillator tank-air interface were found to have the largest effect on the measured light distribution, and lens aberrations and vignetting were important primarily at the image edges. Photon scatter in the scintillator was not found to be a significant source of artefacts. The correction methods effectively mitigated the artefacts, increasing the average gamma analysis pass rate from 66% to 98% for gamma criteria of 2% dose difference and 2 mm distance to agreement. We conclude that optical artefacts cause clinically meaningful errors in the measured light distribution, and we have demonstrated effective strategies for correcting these optical artefacts.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".