MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152894352 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2000.900687

Neutron therapy using medical linacs

2002· article· en· W2152894352 on OpenAlexaff
N. Adnani, B. G. Fallone

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutron captureLinear particle acceleratorNeutronNeutron temperatureNeutron fluxPhotonCollimatorBeam (structure)BoronNeutron sourceNeutron radiationPhysicsNuclear physicsMaterials scienceRadiochemistryOpticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measurements of the neutron flux generated at depth in water by an 18 MV photon beam of a Varian 2100C linac are presented. The thermal neutron flux at depth exhibits a maximum at around 5 cm of 1.37/spl times/10/sup 6/ n/cm/sup 2//s for a 40/spl times/40 cm/sup 2/ field size, 100 cm SSD and a photon output of 400 MU/min. Because of the low thermal neutron flux, a large concentration of boron-10 at the tumor is required to achieve significant dose deposition by boron neutron capture reaction. To reduce the concentration required at the tumor it is necessary to increase the irradiation time without a significant increase in the photon dose. This is found to be possible by completely closing the collimator jaws which results in a 1000 times reduction in the photon dose. Also the thermal neutron flux can be further increased by reducing the SSD to the minimum possible (50 cm in the authors' case). In such conditions, the linac can be considered to be operating in a neutron beam mode. In addition, a 25 MV photon beam will generated 10 times more neutrons than an 18 MV beam. This report demonstrates that boron neutron capture therapy and boron neutron capture enhanced photon therapy can be successfully performed using the neutron beam generated by high energy medical linacs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207