MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797302100 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aabd2d

Characterization of the exradin W1 plastic scintillation detector for small field applications in proton therapy

2018· article· en· W2797302100 on OpenAlexafffund
Cornelia Hoehr, C. Lindsay, Joel Beaudry, Crystal Penner, V Strgar, R Lee, Cheryl Duzenli

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of VictoriaTRIUMF
FundersNational Research Council CanadaTRIUMF
KeywordsProton therapyDetectorScintillationOpticsDosimetryProtonPhysicsBragg peakSIGNAL (programming language)Monte Carlo methodBeam (structure)Dose profileMaterials scienceNuclear medicineNuclear physicsMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate dosimetry in small field proton therapy is challenging, particularly for applications such as ocular therapy, and suitable detectors for this purpose are sought. The Exradin W1 plastic scintillating fibre detector is known to out-perform most other detectors for determining relative dose factors for small megavoltage photon beams used in radiotherapy but its potential in small proton beams has been relatively unexplored in the literature. The 1 mm diameter cylindrical geometry and near water equivalence of the W1 makes it an attractive alternative to other detectors. This study examines the dosimetric performance of the W1 in a 74 MeV proton therapy beam with particular focus on detector response characteristics relevant to relative dose measurement in small fields suitable for ocular therapy. Quenching of the scintillation signal is characterized and demonstrated not to impede relative dose measurements at a fixed depth. The background cable-only (Čerenkov and radio-fluorescence) signal is 4 orders of magnitude less than the scintillation signal, greatly simplifying relative dose measurements. Comparison with other detectors and Monte Carlo simulations indicate that the W1 is useful for measuring relative dose factors for field sizes down to 5 mm diameter and shallow spread out Bragg peaks down to 6 mm in depth.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207