MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624463952 · doi:10.1002/acm2.12115

<scp>MR</scp>‐safe personal radiation dosimeters

2017· article· en· W2624463952 on OpenAlexaff
Ekaterina Tchistiakova, A. Kim, William Y. Song, Geordi Pang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimeterRadiationNuclear medicineMedical physicsRadiochemistryLow Dose RadiationDosimetryMedicinePhysicsOpticsChemistryDose–response relationshipInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being rapidly integrated for cancer treatments-such systems are referred to as MRI-guided radiation therapy (MRIgRT). As the magnet of an MRI scanner is always on, the presence of a strong static magnetic field from the MRI scanner during radiotherapy delivery presents new challenges. One of the challenges is that a personal radiation dosimeter used to estimate the radiation dose deposited in an individual wearing the device must be MR-safe. No such devices, however, are currently available. In this work we first modified an existing personal dosimeter (by removing a metal clip) to make it MR-safe and then investigated potential effects of magnetic field on dosimeter readings, i.e., optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter (OSLD) readings. We found that the effect of magnetic field on OSLD sensitivity was within radiation protection tolerance levels. OSLD personal dosimeters can be directly used in conjunction with MRIgRT radiation protection purposes.

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)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.007

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207