MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769528126 · doi:10.1002/mp.12669

Aerrow: A probe‐format graphite calorimeter for absolute dosimetry of high‐energy photon beams in the clinical environment

2017· article· en· W2769528126 on OpenAlexafffund
James Renaud, Arman Sarfehnia, Julien Bancheri, Jan Seuntjens

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIonization chamberDosimetryCalorimeter (particle physics)Adiabatic processLinear particle acceleratorImaging phantomIsothermal processBeam (structure)PhotonMaterials scienceAbsorbed doseNuclear medicineDosimeterIonizationPhysicsOpticsIonMedicineDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose In this work, the design, operation, initial experimental evaluation, and characterization of a small‐scale graphite calorimeter probe — herein referred to as the Aerrow — developed for routine use in the clinical environment, are described. Similar in size and shape to a Farmer type cylindrical ionization chamber, the Aerrow represents the first translation of calorimetry intended for direct use by clinical physicists in the radiotherapy clinic. Methods Based on a numerically optimized design obtained in previous work, a functioning Aerrow prototype capable of two independent modes of operation (quasi‐adiabatic and isothermal) was constructed in‐house. Reference dose measurements were performed using both Aerrow operation modes in a 6 MV photon beam and were directly compared to results obtained with a calibrated reference‐class ionization chamber. The Aerrow was then used to quantify the absolute output of five clinical linac‐based photon beams (6 MV , 6 MV FFF , 10 MV , 10 MV FFF , and 15 MV ; 63.2% < % dd (10)× < 76.3%). Linearity, dose rate, and orientation dependences were also investigated. Results Compared to an ion chamber‐derived dose to water of 76.3 ± 0.7 cG y, the average doses measured using the Aerrow were 75.6 ± 0.7 and 74.7 ± 0.7 cG y/ MU for the quasi‐adiabatic and isothermal modes, respectively. All photon beam output measurements using the Aerrow in water‐equivalent phantom agreed with chamber‐based clinical reference dosimetry data within combined standard uncertainties. The linearity of the Aerrow's response was characterized by an adjusted R 2 value of 0.9998 in the dose range of 80 cG y to 470 cG y. For the dose‐rate dependence, no statistically significant effects were observed in the range of 0.5 Gy/min to 5.4 Gy/min. A relative photon beam quality dependence of 1.7% was calculated in the range of 60 Co to 24 MV (58.4% < % dd (10)× < 86.8%) using Monte Carlo. Finally, the angular dependence (gantry stationary and detector rotated) of the Aerrow's response was found to be insignificant to within ±0.5%. Conclusions This work demonstrates the feasibility of using an ion chamber‐sized calorimeter as a practical means of measuring absolute dose to water in the radiotherapy clinic. The potential introduction of calorimetry as a mainstream device into the clinical setting is powerful, as this fundamental technique has formed the basis of absorbed dose standards in many countries for decades and could one day form the basis of a new local absorbed dose standard for clinics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207