TU‐D‐201‐03: Results of a Survey On the Implementation of the TG‐51 Protocol and Associated Addendum On Reference Dosimetry of External Beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The working group on the review and extension of the TG‐51 protocol (WGTG51) collected data from American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) members with respect to their current TG‐51 and associated addendum usage in the interest of considering future protocol addenda and guidance on reference dosimetry best practices. This study reports an overview of this survey on dosimetry of external beams. Methods: Fourteen survey questions were developed by WGTG51 and released in November 2015. The questions collected information on reference dosimetry, beam quality specification, and ancillary calibration equipment. Results: Of the 190 submissions completed worldwide (U.S. 70%), 83% were AAPM members. Of the respondents, 33.5% implemented the TG‐51 addendum, with the maximum calibration difference for any photon beam, with respect to the original TG‐51 protocol, being <1% for 97.4% of responses. One major finding is that 81.8% of respondents used the same cylindrical ionization chamber for photon and electron dosimetry, implying that many clinics are foregoing the use of parallel‐plate chambers. Other evidence suggests equivalent dosimetric results can be obtained with both cylindrical and parallel‐plate chambers in electron beams. This, combined with users comfort with cylindrical chambers for electrons will likely impact recommendations put forward in an upcoming electron beam addendum to the TG‐51 protocol. Data collected on ancillary equipment showed 58.2% (45.0%) of the thermometers (barometers) in use for beam calibration had NIST traceable calibration certificates, but 48.4% (42.7%) were never recalibrated. Conclusion: This survey provides a snapshot of TG‐51 external beam reference dosimetry practice in radiotherapy centers. Findings demonstrate the rapid take‐up of the TG‐51 photon beam addendum and raise issues for the WGTG51 to focus on going forward, including guidelines on ancillary equipment and the choice of chamber for electron beam dosimetry.
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 | 0.033 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".