TH-AB-BRA-06: MOSFET-Based Dosimetry in An MR Image-Guided Radiation Therapy System: Comparison with and Without a Static 0.3T Magnetic Field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare depth-dose and surface-dose measurements without and with the magnetic field in a 0.3T MR image-guided Co-60 treatment unit using MOSFET dosimeters. Methods: MOSFET dosimeters (Best Medical Canada, model TN-502RDH-10) were placed in a solid water phantom at 5cm depth with 8cm backscatter (with the MOSFET wires in different orientations to the couch long axis) and also on the surface of an 8cm solid water phantom. The phantoms were placed in an MR image-guided Co-60 treatment machine at an SAD of 105cm to the MOSFETs. Dose measurements were performed between 50 and 200cGy at 5cm depth in a 10.5cm × 10.5cm radiation field without the magnetic field (during a machine maintenance period) and with the nominal magnetic field of 0.3T. The dose linearity was measured at 5cm depth with an orthogonal field and the angular dose dependence was measured on the surface with an orthogonal field and oblique fields at +60 degrees and −60 degrees. Results: The measured MOSFET readings at 5cm depth were linear with dose with slopes of (2.97 +/− 0.01) mV/cGy and (3.01 +/− 0.02) mV/cGy without and with the magnetic field, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found. The surface dose measurements, however, were lower by 6.4% for the AP field (2.3 σ) with magnetic field, 4.9% for the −60 degree field (1.4 σ), and 0.4% different for the +60 degree field (0.2 σ). Conclusion: There is no statistically significant difference in the dose at depth without and with the magnetic field and different orientations of the MOSFET wires. There is a statistically significant difference for the surface dose due to the influence of the magnetic field on secondary electrons from head-scatter and the build-up region in certain field orientations. Clinical surface-dose dosimetry in a magnetic field should apply asymmetric angle-dependent corrections.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".