MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152155675 · doi:10.1118/1.3495537

Monte Carlo calculations of , the beam quality conversion factor

2010· article· en· W2152155675 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Innovation TrustCummings Foundation
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodQuality (philosophy)DosimetryPhysicsComputational physicsMedical physicsStatistical physicsMaterials scienceNuclear medicineStatisticsMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To use EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulations to directly calculate beam quality conversion factors, kQ, for 32 cylindrical ionization chambers over a range of beam qualities and to quantify the effect of systematic uncertainties on Monte Carlo calculations of kQ. These factors are required to use the TG-51 or TRS-398 clinical dosimetry protocols for calibrating external radiotherapy beams. METHODS: Ionization chambers are modeled either from blueprints or manufacturers' user's manuals. The dose-to-air in the chamber is calculated using the EGSnrc user-code egs_chamber using 11 different tabulated clinical photon spectra for the incident beams. The dose to a small volume of water is also calculated in the absence of the chamber at the midpoint of the chamber on its central axis. Using a simple equation, kQ is calculated from these quantities under the assumption that W/e is constant with energy and compared to TG-51 protocol and measured values. RESULTS: Polynomial fits to the Monte Carlo calculated kQ factors as a function of beam quality expressed as %dd(10)x and TPR10(20) are given for each ionization chamber. Differences are explained between Monte Carlo calculated values and values from the TG-51 protocol or calculated using the computer program used for TG-51 calculations. Systematic uncertainties in calculated kQ values are analyzed and amount to a maximum of one standard deviation uncertainty of 0.99% if one assumes that photon cross-section uncertainties are uncorrelated and 0.63% if they are assumed correlated. The largest components of the uncertainty are the constancy of W/e and the uncertainty in the cross-section for photons in water. CONCLUSIONS: It is now possible to calculate kQ directly using Monte Carlo simulations. Monte Carlo calculations for most ionization chambers give results which are comparable to TG-51 values. Discrepancies can be explained using individual Monte Carlo calculations of various correction factors which are more accurate than previously used values. For small ionization chambers with central electrodes composed of high-Z materials, the effect of the central electrode is much larger than that for the aluminum electrodes in Farmer chambers.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.299 · 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