MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2568442459 · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/aa586d

Dosimetric characterization of an accessory mounted mini-beam collimator across clinically beam matched medical linear accelerators

2017· article· en· W2568442459 on OpenAlexaff
W. M. Davis, Cody Crewson, Andrew Alexander, Vijayananda Kundapur, Gavin Cranmer‐Sargison

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Physics & Engineering Express · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Cancer AgencyUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollimatorLinear particle acceleratorBeam (structure)Characterization (materials science)OpticsNuclear medicineMedical physicsMaterials scienceMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Purpose. The goal of this project was the dosimetric characterization of a mini-beam collimator across three clinically beam matched medical linear accelerators (linacs). Methods and Materials. The beam quality (%DD(10)), peak-to-valley dose ratio (PVDR), collimator factor ( C F f m i n i w ) , and relative output ( O F f m i n i w ) were obtained for 6 MV mini-beam collimated fields of various sizes on three clinically beam matched Varian iX medical linear accelerators. Monte Carlo simulations of the mini-beam collimated fields were used to correlate the experimental results to the accelerators’ electron beam full width-half maximum (FWHM) incident on the Bremsstrahlung target. Results. The beam quality of the mini-beam collimated field on all three linear accelerators agreed with that of the open field beam to within ±1%. PVDR on the different linacs varied by up to ±8.1% from the mean. Similarly, the collimator factors varied from the mean by up to ±3.6%. However, changes in the mini-beam collimated field due to changes in collimator inclination with respect to the beam central axis or field size were consistent across the three linacs. The collimator factors of the linacs were found to decrease by up to 7.1% in response to changes in inclination of less than 0.1°, and have an inverse relationship to field size. Monte Carlo simulations indicated that the disagreement in collimator factor can be linked to variation in the spatial width of the electron beam incident on the Bremsstrahlung target. Conclusion. A mini-beam collimator has been dosimetrically characterized on three clinically beam matched medical linear accelerators. Discrepancies in the mini-beam collimated field characteristics were observed across accelerators. Monte Carlo simulation revealed that these differences were related to the linac electron beam FWHM.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Physics & Engineering ExpressSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207