MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004139536 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/abbd15

GEANT4 simulation of a range verification method using delayed <i>γ</i> spectroscopy of a <sup>92</sup> Mo marker

2020· article· en· W3004139536 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsTRIUMFUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProtonMonte Carlo methodRange (aeronautics)Beam (structure)Proton therapySpectroscopyHadron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we propose a novel technique for in-vivo proton therapy range verification. This technique makes use of a molybdenum hadron tumour marker, implanted at a short distance from the clinical treatment volume. Signals emitted from the marker during treatment can provide a direct measurement of the proton beam energy at the marker's position. Fusion-evaporation reactions between the proton beam and marker nucleus result in the emission of delayed characteristic γ rays, which are detected off-beam for an improved signal-to-noise ratio. In order to determine the viability of this technique and to establish an experimental setup for future work, the Monte Carlo package GEANT4 was used in combination with ROOT to simulate a treatment scenario with the new method outlined in this work. These simulations show that the intensity of delayed γ rays produced from competing reactions yields a precise measurement of the range of the proton beam relative to the marker, with sub-millimetre uncertainty.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207