The use of 0.5r<sub>cav</sub> as an effective point of measurement for cylindrical chambers may result in a systematic shift of electron percentage depth doses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Electron dosimetry can be performed using cylindrical chambers, plane‐parallel chambers, and diode detectors. The finite volume of these detectors results in a displacement effect which is taken into account using an effective point of measurement (EPOM). Dosimetry protocols have recommended a shift of 0.5 rcav for cylindrical chambers; however, various studies have shown that the optimal shift may deviate from this recommended value. This study investigated the effect that the selection of EPOM shift for cylindrical chamber has on percentage depth dose (PDD) curves. Depth dose curves were measured in a water phantom for electron beams with energies ranging from 6 to 18 MeV. The detectors investigated were of three different types: diodes (Diode‐E PTW 60017 and SFD IBA), cylindrical (Semiflex PTW 31010, PinPoint PTW 31015, and A12 Exradin), and parallel plate ionization chambers (Advanced Markus PTW 34045 and Markus PTW 23343). Depth dose curves measured with Diode‐E and Advanced Markus agreed within 0.2 mm at R50 except for 18 MeV and extremely large field size. The PDDs measured with the Semiflex chamber and Exradin A12 were about 1.1 mm (with respect to the Advanced Markus chamber) shallower than those measured with the other detectors using a 0.5 rcav shift. The difference between the PDDs decreased when a Pinpoint chamber, with a smaller cavity radius, was used. Agreement improved at lower energies, with the use of previously published EPOM corrections (0.3 rcav). Therefore, the use of 0.5 rcav as an EPOM may result in a systematic shift of the therapeutic portion of the PDD (distances < R90). Our results suggest that a 0.1 rcav shift is more appropriate for one chamber model (Semiflex PTW 31010).
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".