MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185268684 · doi:10.1016/j.rpor.2015.11.001

A surface energy spectral study on the bone heterogeneity and beam obliquity using the flattened and unflattened photon beams

2015· article· en· W2185268684 on OpenAlexaff
James C. L. Chow, Amir Owrangi

Bibliographic record

VenueReports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomPhotonFluenceTruebeamPhysicsPhoton energyBeam (structure)Monte Carlo methodOpticsRange (aeronautics)Linear particle acceleratorFlatteningAtomic physicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Using flattened and unflattened photon beams, this study investigated the spectral variations of surface photon energy and energy fluence in the bone heterogeneity and beam obliquity. BACKGROUND: Surface dose enhancement is a dosimetric concern when using unflattened photon beam in radiotherapy. It is because the unflattened photon beam contains more low-energy photons which are removed by the flattening filter of the flattened photon beam. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a water and bone heterogeneity phantom to study the distributions of energy, energy fluence and mean energy of the 6 MV flattened and unflattened photon beams (field size = 10 cm × 10 cm) produced by a Varian TrueBEAM linear accelerator. These elements were calculated at the phantom surfaces using Monte Carlo simulations. The photon energy and energy fluence calculations were repeated with the beam angle turned from 0° to 15°, 30° and 45° in the water and bone phantom. RESULTS: Spectral results at the phantom surfaces showed that the unflattened photon beams contained more photons concentrated mainly in the low-energy range (0-2 MeV) than the flattened beams associated with a flattening filter. With a bone layer of 1 cm under the phantom surface and within the build-up region of the 6 MV photon beam, it is found that both the flattened and unflattened beams had slightly less photons in the energy range <0.4 MeV compared to the water phantom. This shows that the presence of the bone decreased the low-energy photon backscatters to the phantom surface. When both the flattened and unflattened photon beams were rotated from 0° to 45°, the number of photon and mean photon energy increased. This indicates that both photon beams became more hardened or penetrate when the beam angle increased. In the presence of bone, the mean energies of both photon beams increased. This is due to the absorption of low-energy photons by the bone, resulting in more beam hardening. CONCLUSIONS: This study explores the spectral relationships of surface photon energy and energy fluence with bone heterogeneity and beam obliquity for the flattened and unflattened photon beams. The photon spectral information is important in studies on the patient's surface dose enhancement using unflattened photon beams in radiotherapy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReports of Practical Oncology & RadiotherapySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207