MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964366099 · doi:10.1002/mp.13744

On calculating kerma, collision kerma and radiative yields

2019· article· en· W2964366099 on OpenAlexaff
D. W. O. Rogers, R Townson

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKermaCollisionDosimetryRadiative transferPhysicsNuclear physicsNuclear medicineOpticsComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To study the relationships between dose ( D ), kerma ( K ), and collision kerma ( ) in photon beams and to investigate total radiative yields for electrons and positrons as a function of energy. To do this accurately required calculating collision kerma directly as a function of position in a phantom and making changes to the EGSnrc package (including DOSRZnrc and g applications). Methods Changes were made to the EGSnrc system to allow the user to distinguish events according to their initiating process, most importantly relaxation particles initiated by electron impact ionization as opposed to initiated by photons, especially those events depositing energy below energy cutoffs after relaxation events. Appropriate changes were made to the applications DOSRZnrc and g and a new application, DOSRZnrcKcol , was written. Results The modified codes are much more robust against changes in simulation parameters such as ECUT and AE and whether or not electron impact ionization is included in the simulation. The radiative yields for electrons generally differ from values in ICRU Report 37 1 (1984) which only account for radiative losses due to bremsstrahlung. The Monte Carlo calculated g (brems) values are generally greater than the ICRU 37 values due to energy‐loss straggling. Plots of D , K and vs depth in megavoltage photon beams show that some “conventional wisdom” does not hold in general ( e.g ., D is not always greater than K past ) and in general at 10 cm depth it is found that D ≈ K and . The beam radius at which reaches its saturation value depends strongly on the threshold used to define reaching saturation and is generally greater than the radius for lateral charged particle equilibrium used in the TRS‐483 Code of Practice for small beam dosimetry 2 (Palmans et al, Med Phys . 2018; 45 :e1123–e1145). Conclusions The changes to EGSnrc make kerma calculations more accurate but previous calculations with electron impact ionization turned off gave close to correct results. The application DOSRZnrcKcol makes calculating collision kerma more efficient and avoids various approximations used in the past although those approximations are shown to be justified. Including energy‐loss straggling when calculating bremsstrahlung radiation yield increases the value. Fluorescence losses and annihilation in flight further increase the radiation yield of electrons and positrons. Results demonstrate the effects of EGSnrc using electron bremsstrahlung production cross sections for positrons and failing to model positron impact ionization.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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