MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3012723084 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab82e7

Monte Carlo and water calorimetric determination of kilovoltage beam radiotherapy ionization chamber correction factors

2020· article· en· W3012723084 on OpenAlexafffund
Julien Bancheri, S. Ketelhut, L Büermann, Jan Seuntjens

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIonization chamberPhysicsMonte Carlo methodBeam (structure)PhotonAbsorbed doseImaging phantomCalibrationIonizationPrimary standardOpticsRadiationMaterials scienceIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The in-phantom calibration method for radiotherapy kilovoltage x-ray beams requires ionization chamber correction factors. The overall ionization chamber correction factor accounts for changes in the chamber response due to the displacement of water by the chamber cavity and wall, the presence of the stem and the change in incident photon energy and angular distribution in the phantom to that in air. A waterproof sheath, if required, is accounted for in a sheath correction factor. The aim of this study is to determine chamber correction factors through Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and water calorimetry measurements. Correction factors are determined for the PTW TM30013, NE2571, IBA FC65-G, IBA FC65-P and Exradin A12 ionization chambers. They are compared to experimental values obtained at the German national metrology institute Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) with their water calorimetry-based absorbed dose to water primary standard and at other national metrological institutes. An uncertainty analysis considers the contributions to the uncertainty on the chamber correction factors from the field size, photon cross sections, photon fluence spectra and chamber wall and central electrode dimensions. The MC calculated chamber correction factors are within 2.2% of unity with a standard uncertainty of 0.3%. For the 50 kV and 100 - 140 kV radiation beam qualities, the calculated correction factors deviate from the measured correction factors (with a standard uncertainty of 1%) by up to 2.6%. The calculated chamber correction factors for the PTW TM30013 and Exradin A12 are consistent with those derived from the BIPM kilovoltage primary standard. The inconsistencies between the calculated and experimental chamber correction factors indicate the need to further investigate the accuracy of kilovoltage absorbed dose to water primary standards and the use of MC simulations to determine kilovoltage beam chamber correction factors.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and Biology→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→