MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2900540201 · doi:10.1002/mp.13285

Technical Note: <scp>EPID</scp>'s response to 6 <scp>MV</scp> photons in a strong, parallel magnetic field

2018· article· en· W2900540201 on OpenAlexaff
S Rathee, B. G. Fallone, S Steciw

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotonMagnetic fieldPhysicsMedical imagingField (mathematics)Medical physicsOpticsNuclear magnetic resonanceMedicineRadiologyMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) are potentially useful for dosimetric verification in integrated MRI‐linac systems. This work presents the reproducibility, linearity, image lag, and radiation field profiles in a conventional EPID, with and without a 0.5 T parallel magnetic field present in a 6 MV photon beam. Methods An aS500 EPID was modified to function in strong magnetic fields. All measurements were made using the linac‐MR installed at the Cross Cancer Institute. The EPID remained stationary on the couch between the measurements made with and without magnetic field. We measured short‐term reproducibility of dark and flood fields, signal linearity from 1 to 500 MU irradiations, and image lag post 100 MU irradiation. An ion chamber was used to measure any linac output variations to correct the EPID signal due to these variations for the duration of experiment. X‐axis and Y‐axis radiation field profiles were obtained from the EPID image resulting from a 10 × 10 cm2 radiation field delivery. Results The average pixel value (±standard deviation) of flood field with and without magnetic fields were 57,876 ± 379 and 57,703 ± 366, respectively, and the corresponding average dark field pixel values were −32.05 ± 0.85 and −32.19 ± 0.97. The maximum difference in image linearity data with and without magnetic field is 0.2% which is well within the measurement uncertainty of 0.65%. Similarly, the image lag curves, with and without the magnetic field, were nearly identical. The first measured point, with mean lag signal of 1.44% without and 1.41% with magnetic field, shows that the largest difference is well below the uncertainty in the EPID signal measurement. The radiation field profiles obtained with and without magnetic fields were nearly identical; 91.3% of the X‐axis and 95.2% of the Y‐axis profile points pass a gamma criterion of 1% and 1 mm. Conclusions A conventional EPID imager with a 0.1 cm copper plate responds to 6 MV photons similarly irrespective of the strong magnetic field being off or on in the parallel orientation to the radiation beam. Thus, the EPID is a potentially useful tool for pretreatment dosimetric verification in linac‐MR systems using parallel magnetic field.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→