Poster ‐ 11: Radiation barrier thickness calculations for the GammaPod
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A consortium of radiotherapy centers in North America is in the process of evaluating a novel new 60Co teletherapy device, called the GammaPod™ (Xcision Medical Systems, Columbia Maryland), designed specifically for breast SBRT. The GammaPod consists of 36 collimated 60Co sources with a total activity of 4320 Ci. The sources are housed in a hemispherical source carrier that rotates during treatment to produce a cylindrically symmetric cone of primary beam spanning 16° – 54° degrees from the horizontal. This unique beam geometry presents challenges when designing or evaluating room shielding for the purposes of meeting regulatory requirements, and for ensuring the safety of staff and the public in surrounding areas. Conventional methods for calculating radiation barrier thicknesses have been adapted so that barrier transmission factors for the GammaPod can be determined from a few relevant distances and characteristics of the primary beam. Simple formalisms have been determined for estimating shielding requirements for primary radiation (with a rotating and non‐rotating source carrier), patient‐scattered radiation, and leakage radiation. When making worst case assumptions, it was found that conventional barrier thicknesses associated with linac treatment suites are sufficient for shielding all sources of radiation from the GammaPod.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".