An investigation into the INTRABEAM miniature x‐ray source dosimetry using ionization chamber and radiochromic film measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Intraoperative radiotherapy using The INTRABEAM System (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany), a miniature low-energy x-ray source, has proven to be an effective modality in the treatment of breast cancer. However, some uncertainties remain in its dosimetry. In this work, we investigated the INTRABEAM system dosimetry by performing ionization chamber and radiochromic film measurements of absorbed dose in a water phantom. METHODS: Ionization chamber measurements were performed with a PTW 34013 parallel-plate soft x-ray chamber at source to detector distances of 5 to 30 mm calculated using (a) the dose formula consistent with the TARGIT breast protocol (TARGIT), (b) the formula recommended by the manufacturer (Zeiss), and (c) the recently proposed CQ formalism of Watson et al. (Physics in Medicine & Biology, 2018;63:015016) EBT3 Gafchromic film measurements were made at the same depths in water. To account for the energy dependence of EBT3 film, multiple dose response calibration curves were employed across a range of photon beam qualities relevant to the INTRABEAM spectrum in water. RESULTS: At all depths investigated, the TARGIT dose was significantly lower than that measured by the Zeiss and CQ methods, as well as film. These dose differences ranged from 14% to as large as 80%. In general, the doses measured by film, and the Zeiss and CQ methods were in good agreement to within measurement uncertainties (5-6%). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the TARGIT dose underestimates the physical dose to water from the INTRABEAM source. Understanding the correlation between the TARGIT and physical dose is important for any studies wishing to make dosimetric comparisons between the INTRABEAM and other radiation emitting devices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".