Dose–response of EBT3 radiochromic films to proton and carbon ion clinical beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the dose-response of the external beam therapy 3 (EBT3) films for proton and carbon ion clinical beams, in comparison with conventional radiotherapy beams; we also measured the film response along the energy deposition-curve in water. We performed measurements at three hadrontherapy centres by delivering monoenergetic pencil beams (protons: 63-230 MeV; carbon ions: 115-400 MeV/u), at 0.4-20 Gy dose to water, in the plateau of the depth-dose curve. We also irradiated the films to clinical MV-photon and electron beams. We placed the EBT3 films in water along the whole depth-dose curve for 148.8 MeV protons and 398.9 MeV/u carbon ions, in comparison with measurements provided by a plane-parallel ionization chamber. For protons, the response of EBT3 in the plateau of the depth-dose curve is not different from that of photons, within experimental uncertainties. For carbon ions, we observed an energy dependent under-response of EBT3 film, from 16% to 29% with respect to photon beams. Moreover, we observed an under-response in the Bragg peak region of about 10% for 148.8 MeV protons and of about 42% for 398.9 MeV/u carbon ions. For proton and carbon ion clinical beams, an under-response occurs at the Bragg peak. For carbon ions, we also observed an under-response of the EBT3 in the plateau of the depth-dose curve. This effect is the highest at the lowest initial energy of the clinical beams, a phenomenon related to the corresponding higher LET in the film sensitive layer. This behavior should be properly modeled when using EBT3 films for accurate 3D 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".