MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899818064 · doi:10.1002/mp.13281

The influence of nuclear interactions on ionization chamber perturbation factors in proton beams: FLUKA simulations supported by a Fano test

2018· article· en· W2899818064 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Lourenço, Hugo Bouchard, S. Galer, Gary Royle, Hugo Palmans

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Physical LaboratoryUniversity College London
KeywordsIonization chamberProtonNuclear physicsPhysicsIonizationFano planeDosimetryAtomic physicsNuclear medicineIonMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose In all recent protocols for the reference dosimetry of clinical proton beams, ionization chamber perturbation factors are assumed to be unity. In this work, such factors were computed using the FLUKA Monte Carlo code for three ionization chamber types, with particular attention to the influence of nuclear interactions. Methods The accuracy of the transport algorithms implemented in FLUKA was first evaluated by performing a Fano cavity test. Ionization chamber perturbation factors were computed for the PTW‐34001 Roos ® and the PTW‐34070 and PTW‐34073 Bragg peak ® chambers for proton beams of 60–250 MeV using the same transport parameters that were needed to pass the Fano test. Results FLUKA was found to pass the Fano test within 0.15%. Ionization chamber simulation results show that the presence of the air cavity and the wall results in dose perturbations of the order of 0.6% and 0.8%, respectively. The perturbation factors are shown to be energy dependent and nuclear interactions must be taken into account for accurate calculation of the ionization chamber's response. Conclusion Ionization chamber perturbations can amount to 1% in high‐energy proton beams and therefore need to be considered in dosimetry procedures.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207