MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769550868

Stacked Pie Cage In Vivo Mouse Dosimetry Involving Multiple Sources and Energies

2017· article· en· W2769550868 on OpenAlexaff
Michael S. Gossman, Ling Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Research Archives · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsBest Theratronics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrradiationImaging phantomDosimetryRadiationCageNuclear medicineAttenuationBeam (structure)Beam energyPhotonIn vivoRadiochemistryCobalt-60PhysicsMonitor unitRadiobiologyMaterials scienceChemistryOpticsNuclear physicsMathematicsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study measures the dose for phantom mice within three stackable pie cages, using all of the most common irradiation devices used in radiobiology today. It facilitates determination of net scatter factors for irradiation caused by the cages and mice being in the beam, at energies ranging from 160 keV to 15 MV. In vivo radiation measurements using TLDs on phantom mice were used to approximate the dose at each pie cage stack level. Irradiation devices include a particle accelerator at 6, 10 and 15 MV, cobalt unit at 1.253 MeV, cesium unit at 662 keV, and a standard x-ray unit at 160 keV. Energy dependence was observed with respect to the dose given. Dose change irregularities were consequentially a result of attenuation and scatter throughout the pie cage. This dose dependence on energy was found to increase with increasing photon energy. Dose results from stacked cage irradiation were found to be within SF=0.701-2.508 (-30% to +251%) of the calibrated dose output. Radiation measurements suggest considerable dosimetric differences exist to mice at each level when pie cages are stacked. Results varied remarkably when also including a change in the incident photon energy beam. Researchers may make use of plots offered in this research to estimate corrections to the calculated irradiation time needed to arrive at the prescribed radiation dose to mice at any level. Data provided directly correlate to the dose given to real mice at any energy using this same geometry.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Research ArchivesSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207