Reviewing three dimensional dosimetry: basics and utilization as presented over 17 Years of DosGel and IC3Ddose
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For seventeen years a community of basic and clinical scientists and researchers has been meeting bi-annually to promote the clinical advance of techniques to measure radiation dose in three dimensions. The interest in this dosimetry was motivated by its promise as an effective methodology for 3D measurement of the complex conformal dose distributions achieved by modern techniques such as Intensity Modulated and Volumetric Arc Radiation Therapy. Each of the International Conferences on 3D Radiation Dosimetry resulted in the publication of informative proceedings [1-8], the majority openly available on the internet. The proceedings included papers that: i) reviewed the basic science of the radiation sensitive materials used to accumulate the dose information, ii) introduced the science and engineering of the imaging systems required to read the information out, iii) described the work flows and systems required for efficient dosimetry, iv) reported the protocols required for reproducible dosimetry, and v) showed examples of clinical use illustrating advantage and limitations of the dosimetry. This paper is intended to use the framework provided by these proceedings to review the current 3D chemical dosimeters available and to discuss the requirements for their use. The paper describes how 3D dosimetry can complement other dose delivery validation approaches available in the clinic. It closes with some personal reflections of how the motivation for, and practice of, 3D dosimetry have changed (or not) over the years.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it