Measurements and Monte Carlo calculation of radial dose and anisotropy functions of BEBIG 60Co high-dose-rate brachytherapy source in a bounded water phantom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The study compared the experimentally measured radial dose function, g(r), and anisotropy function, F(r,θ), of a BEBIG 60 Co (Co0.A86) high-dose-rate (HDR) source in an in-house designed water phantom with egs_ brachy Monte Carlo (MC) calculated values.MC results available in the literature were only for unbounded phantoms, and there are no currently published data in the literature for experimental data compared to MC calculations for a bounded phantom.Material and methods: egs_brachy is a fast EGSnrc application designed for brachytherapy applications.For unbounded phantom calculation, we considered a cylindrical phantom with a length and diameter of 80 cm and used liquid water.These egs_brachy calculated TG43U1 parameters were compared with the consensus data.Upon its validation, we experimentally measured g(r) and F(r,θ) in a precisely machined 30 × 30 × 30 cm 3 water phantom using TLD-100 and EBT2 Gafchromic Film and compared it with the egs_brachy results of the same geometry.Results: The TG43U1 dosimetric dataset calculated using egs_brachy was compared with published data for an unbounded phantom, and found to be in good agreement within 2%.From our experimental results of g(r) and F(r,θ), the observed variation with the egs_brachy code calculation is found to be within the acceptable experimental uncertainties of 3%.Conclusions: In this study, we validated the egs_brachy calculation of the TG43U1 dataset for the BEBIG 60 Co source for an unbounded geometry.Subsequently, we measured the g(r) and F(r,θ) for the same source using an in-house water phantom.In addition, we validated these experimental results with the values calculated using the egs_brachy MC code, with the same geometry and similar phantom material as used in the experimental methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".