MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148615956 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/50/1/011

Preliminary evaluation of implantable MOSFET radiation dosimeters

2004· article· en· W2148615956 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sam Beddar, Mohammad Salehpour, Tina M. Briere, H Hamidian, Michael T. Gillin

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAtomic Energy of Canada Limited
KeywordsDosimeterDosimetryDetectorReproducibilityMaterials scienceIrradiationMOSFETOptoelectronicsRadiationSemiconductor detectorBiomedical engineeringMedical physicsTransistorNuclear medicineOpticsPhysicsElectrical engineeringMedicineChemistryEngineeringVoltageNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we report on measurements performed on a new prototype implantable radiation detector that uses metal-oxide semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs) designed for in vivo dosimetry. The dosimeters, which are encapsulated in hermetically sealed glass cylinders, are used in an unbiased mode during irradiation, unlike other MOSFET detectors previously used in radiotherapy applications. They are powered by radio frequency telemetry for dose measurements, obviating the need for a power supply within each capsule. We have studied the dosimetric characteristics of these MOSFET detectors in vitro under irradiation from a 60Co source. The detectors show a dose reproducibility generally within 5% or better, with the main sources of error being temperature fluctuations occurring between the pre- and post-irradiation measurements as well as detector orientation. A better temperature-controlled environment leads to a reproducibility within 2%. Our preliminary in vitro results show clearly that true non-invasive in vivo dosimetry measurements are feasible and can be performed remotely using telemetric technology.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations48
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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