An evaluation of NCRP Report No. 151 - radiation shielding design for radiotherapy facilities, and a feasibility study for 6 MV open-door treatments in an existing high-energy radiation therapy bunker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis describes a study of shielding design techniques used for radiation therapy facilities that employ megavoltage linear accelerators. Specifically, an evaluation of the shielding design formalism described in NCRP report 151 was undertaken and a feasibility study for open-door 6 MV radiation therapy treatments in existing 6 MV, 18 MV treatment rooms at the Montreal General Hospital (MGH) was conducted. To evaluate the shielding design formalism of NCRP 151, barrier-attenuated equivalent doses were measured for several of the treatment rooms at the MGH and compared with expectations from NCRP 151 calculations. It was found that, while the insight and recommendations of NCRP 151 are very valuable, its dose predictions are not always correct. As such, the NCRP 151 methodology is best used in conjunction with physical measurements. The feasibility study for 6 MV open-door treatments made use of the NCRP 151 formalism, together with physical measurements for realistic 6 MV workloads. The results suggest that, dosimetrically, 6 MV open door treatments are feasible. A conservative estimate for the increased dose at the door arising from such treatments is 0.1 mSv, with a 1/8 occupancy factor, as recommended in NCRP 151, included.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".