The Use of Monte Carlo Simulations for Accurate Dose Determination with Thermoluminescent Dosemeter in Radiation Therapy Beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The energy responses of LiF-TLDs irradiated in megavoltage electron and photon beams have been determined experimentally by many investigators over the past 35 years but the results vary considerably. General cavity theory has been used to model some of the experimental findings but the predictions of these cavity theories differ from each other and from measurements by more than 13%. Recently, two groups or investigators using Monte Carlo simulations and careful experimental techniques showed that the energy response of 1 mm or 2 mm thick LiF-TLD irradiated by megavoltage photon and electron beams is not more than 5% less than unity for low-Z phantom materials like water or Perspex. However, when the depth of irradiation is significantly different from dmax and the TLD size is more than 5 mm, then the energy response is up to 12% less than unity for incident electron beams. Monte Carlo simulations of some of the experiments reported in the literature showed that some of the contradictory experimental results are reproducible with Monte Carlo simulations. Monte Carlo simulations show that the energy response of LiF-TLDs depends on the size of detector used in electron beams, the depth of irradiation and the incident electron energy. Other differences can be attributed to absolute dose determination and precision of the TL technique. Monte Carlo simulations have also been used to evaluate some of the published general cavity theories. The results show that some of the parameters used to evaluate Burlin's general cavity theory are wrong by factor of 3. Despite this, the estimation of the energy response for most clinical situations using Burlin's cavity equation agrees with Monte Carlo simulations within 1%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".