Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the k_(Q_msr,Q)^(f_msr,f_ref) factor, introduced in the small field formalism for five common type chambers used in the calibration of Leksell Gamma‐Knife Perfexion model over a range of different phantom electron densities. Methods: Five chamber types including Exradin‐A16, A14SL, A14, A1SL and IBA‐CC04 are modeled in EGSnrc and PENELOPE Monte Carlo codes using the blueprints provided by the manufacturers. The chambers are placed in a previously proposed water‐filled phantom and four 16‐cm diameter spherical phantoms made of liquid water, Solid Water, ABS and polystyrene. Dose to the cavity of the chambers and a small water volume are calculated using EGSnrc/PENELOPE codes. The calculations are performed over a range of phantom electron densities for two chamber orientations. Using the calculated dose‐ratio in reference and machine specific reference field, the k_(Q_msr,Q)^(f_msr,f_ref) factor can be determined. Results: When chambers are placed along the symmetry axis of the collimator block (z‐axis), the CC04 requires the smallest correction followed by A1SL and A16. However, when detectors are placed perpendicular to z‐axis, A14SL needs the smallest and A16 the largest correction. Moreover, an increase in the phantom electron density results in a linear increase in the k_(Q_msr,Q)^(f_msr,f_ref). Depending on the chambers, the agreement between this study and a previous study performed varies between 0.05–0.70% for liquid water, 0.07–0.85% for Solid Water and 0.00–0.60% for ABS phantoms. After applying the EGSnrc‐calculated k_(Q_msr,Q)^(f_msr,f_ref) factors for A16 to the previously measured dose‐rates in liquid water, Solid Water and ABS normalized to the dose‐rate measured with TG‐21 protocol and ABS phantom, the dose‐rate ratios are found to be 1.004±0.002, 0.996±0.002 and 0.998±0.002 (3σ) respectively. Conclusion: Knowing the electron density of the phantoms, the calculated k_(Q_msr,Q)^(f_msr,f_ref) values in this work will enable users to apply the appropriate correction for their own specific phantom material. LM acknowledges partial support by the CREATE Medical Physics Research Training Network grant of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Grant number: 432290)
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.336 | 0.259 |
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".