MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2955582065 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab2db1

Dose to water versus dose to medium from cavity theory applied to small animal irradiation with kilovolt x-rays

2019· article· en· W2955582065 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Vaniqui, B. R. B. Walters, Gabriel Paiva Fonseca, Frank Verhaegen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsIrradiationMaterials sciencePhysicsNuclear medicineNuclear engineeringOpticsNuclear physicsEnvironmental scienceMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dose reporting is a matter of concern in the preclinical field as the different dose descriptors dose-to-water-in-medium [Formula: see text] and dose-to-medium-in-medium [Formula: see text] coexist. For kV photons differences between both quantities are expected to be amplified due to photon energy absorption coefficients differences for different media, and could represent a limiting factor for accurate translation of pre-clinical research into clinical trials. The main goal of this study was to analyse the relationship between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for kV irradiation of small animals, using different flavours of the intermediate cavity theory (ICT). Irradiations of mathematical phantoms and a mouse CT scan, both with different voxel sizes and materials, were investigated. A modified version of the Monte Carlo code DOSXYZnrc was used to derive [Formula: see text] and convert to [Formula: see text] using ICT. Local photon spectra were generated in different regions of the mouse. Depending on energy and cavity size, which we equate to the voxel size, [Formula: see text] ranged from 0.68 to 4.37 times [Formula: see text]. Higher kV energy combined with very small cavity sizes yielded decreased [Formula: see text] in comparison to [Formula: see text]; this behaviour was reversed for larger cavities combined with lower kV energies. Hence, the impact of the cavity dimensions on estimated [Formula: see text] is significant on pre-clinical kV beams. [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] in the ex vivo male mouse were found to differ by -29% to 286%. Caution is advised when using the ICT due to a lack of consensus on weighting factor (d-parameter) deriving methods; for the same irradiation conditions, different d-values affected [Formula: see text] up to 20%. Pre-clinically, such divergence between dose descriptors could enable biological damage. The abiding debate over which quantity to favour is foreseen to linger while it is unclear which quantity correlates better with the biological effects of ionizing irradiation: preclinical radiotherapy might represent an ideal platform for measurement-based studies to settle this fundamental question. Finally, dose distribution comparisons require caution and should use the same reporting quantity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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