Determination of absorbed dose to water from a miniature kilovoltage x-ray source using a parallel-plate ionization chamber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic brachytherapy sources are widely accepted as alternatives to radionuclide-based systems. Yet, formal dosimetry standards for these devices to independently complement the dose protocol provided by the manufacturer are lacking. This article presents a formalism for calculating and independently verifying the absorbed dose to water from a kV x-ray source (The INTRABEAM System) measured in a water phantom with an ionization chamber calibrated in terms of air-kerma. This formalism uses a Monte Carlo (MC) calculated chamber conversion factor, [Formula: see text], to convert air-kerma in a reference beam to absorbed dose to water in the measurement beam. In this work [Formula: see text] was determined for a PTW 34013 parallel-plate ionization chamber. Our results show that [Formula: see text] was sensitive to the chamber plate separation tolerance, with differences of up to 15%. [Formula: see text] was also found to have a depth dependence which varied with chamber plate separation (0 to 10% variation for the smallest and largest cavity height, over 3 to 30 mm depth). However for all chamber dimensions investigated, [Formula: see text] was found to be significantly larger than the manufacturer reported value, suggesting that the manufacturer recommended method of dose calculation could be underestimating the dose to water.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".