MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2484107417 · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncw198

A MONTE CARLO STUDY OF SIMULATED MEASUREMENTS OF RADIONUCLIDES IN BONE

2016· article· en· W2484107417 on OpenAlexaff
Chaoran Li, Kevin Capello, B. M. Hauck, M. Zankl, Gary H. Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomMonte Carlo methodRadionuclidePhoton countingCounting efficiencyCalibrationVoxelDetectorRange (aeronautics)Photon energyPhotonNuclear medicinePhysicsMaterials scienceComputational physicsNuclear physicsOpticsMathematicsComputer scienceStatisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When measuring the internally deposited activity in the bone of a subject, the placement of the detector is critical. This study reports the simulated counting efficiencies for three counting geometries, the skull, knee and shin, using 13 different voxel phantoms. It shows that the range of counting efficiencies for a given geometry is large for the studied phantoms, especially at low energies. Skull counting offers higher efficiency for low energies such as the 17 keV compared to knee counting or shin counting, but this advantage disappears when the energy is higher such as at 185 keV. This work also shows that the calibration phantom may greatly impact the accuracy of the activity estimate in bone counting, with uncertainties increasing greatly as the photon energy is reduced. Estimating the activity of a radionuclide in bone from direct counting has large uncertainties, and the dose calculated from a skeleton measurement would need careful analysis and, if possible, supporting data from other bioassay measurements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation Protection DosimetrySame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207