Optical CT imaging of solid radiochromic dosimeters in mismatched refractive index solutions using a scanning laser and large area detector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The practical use of the PRESAGE® solid plastic dosimeter is limited by the inconvenience of immersing it in high-viscosity oils to achieve refractive index matching for optical computed tomography (CT) scanning. The oils are slow to mix and difficult to clean from surfaces, and the dosimeter rotation can generate dynamic Schlieren inhomogeneity patterns in the reference liquid, limiting the rotational and overall scan speed. Therefore, it would be beneficial if lower-viscosity, water-based solutions with slightly unmatched refractive index could be used instead. The purpose of this work is to demonstrate the feasibility of allowing mismatched conditions when using a scanning laser system with a large acceptance angle detector. A fiducial-based ray path measurement technique is combined with an iterative CT reconstruction algorithm to reconstruct images. METHODS: A water based surrounding liquid with a low viscosity was selected for imaging PRESAGE® solid dosimeters. Liquid selection was optimized to achieve as high a refractive index as possible while avoiding rotation-induced Schlieren effects. This led to a refractive index mismatch of 6% between liquid and dosimeters. Optical CT scans were performed with a fan-beam scanning-laser optical CT system with a large area detector to capture most of the refracted rays. A fiducial marker placed on the wall of a cylindrical sample occludes a given light ray twice. With knowledge of the rotation angle and the radius of the cylindrical object, the actual internal path of each ray through the dosimeter can be calculated. Scans were performed with 1024 projections of 512 data samples each, and rays were rebinned to form 512 parallel-beam projections. Reconstructions were performed on a 512 × 512 grid using 100 iterations of the SIRT iterative CT algorithm. Proof of concept was demonstrated with a uniformly attenuating solution phantom. PRESAGE® dosimeters (11 cm diameter) were irradiated with Cobalt-60 irradiator to achieve either a uniform dose or a 2-level "step-dose" pattern. RESULTS: With 6% refractive index mismatching, a circular field of view of 85% of the diameter of a cylindrical sample can be reconstructed accurately. Reconstructed images of the test solution phantom were uniform (within 3%) inside this radius. However, the dose responses of the PRESAGE® samples were not spatially uniform, with variations of at least 5% in sensitivity. The variation appears as a "cupping" artifact with less sensitivity in the middle than at the periphery of the PRESAGE® cylinder. Polarization effects were also detected for these samples. CONCLUSIONS: The fiducial-based ray path measurement scheme, coupled with an iterative reconstruction algorithm, enabled optical CT scanning of PRESAGE® dosimeters immersed in mismatched refractive index solutions. However, improvements to PRESAGE® dose response uniformity are required.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".