MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2890169615 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aae0e9

Monte Carlo determination of <i>k</i> <sub>Q</sub> and <i>k</i> <sub>Qmsr</sub> values for the exradin A26 ionisation chamber for the Varian TrueBeam

2018· article· en· W2890169615 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Reynolds, Joël St‐Aubin

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruebeamIonization chamberMonte Carlo methodPhysicsBeam (structure)IonizationComputational physicsAtomic physicsMaterials scienceOpticsLinear particle acceleratorStatisticsMathematicsIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We have calculated conversion factors, k Q for the A26 micro ionisation chamber along with machine specific reference beam quality factors, k Qmsr , for a number of field sizes and beam qualities for the Varian TrueBeam accelerator. The A12 ionisation chamber was simulated alongside the A26, so as to validate against known literature values. Both ionisation chambers were modelled from manufacturer data sheets and schematics. The egs_chamber Monte Carlo user code was used to simulate each absorbed dose relevant to the beam quality conversion factors k Q and k Qmsr . Tabulated spectra for beam energies of 4 through 25 MV were used in the k Q calculations for both investigated chambers. Varian TrueBeam phase space files for 6 MV flattened as well as 6 and 10 MV unflattened beams were used in the simulations of the A26 chamber in field sizes from 2 × 2 cm square to 20 × 20 cm square in order to determine k Qmsr values. The PDD(10)x values of the tabulated spectra were found to be within variation between studies, with an average deviance of 0.4% from one prior study. The simulated A12 k Q values matched the accepted literature values with an average variation of <0.1%. The A26 k Q values match the manufacturer provided values to within 0.5%. For all investigated field sizes the k Qmsr values are within 0.006 of unity. There is no published data for this chamber for a direct comparison, but there is similarity between these results and results from other chambers regularly used in similar circumstances. Furthermore, the agreement of the simulated k Q values to knowns, and the agreement of the PDD(10)x factors would suggest the correctness and accuracy of the study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and Biology→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→