Small-cavity chamber dose response in megavoltage photon beams coupled to magnetic fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In MRgRT, dosimetry measurements are performed in the presence of magnetic fields. For high-resolution measurements, small-cavity ionization chambers are required. While Monte Carlo simulations are essential to determine dosimetry correction factors, models of small-chambers require careful validation with experimental measurements. The aim of this study is to characterize small-cavity chamber response coupled to magnetic fields. Small-cavity chambers (PTW31010, PTW31016, PTW31021 and PTW3022) are irradiated by a 6 MV photon beam for 9 magnetic field strengths between -1.5 T and +1.5 T. The chamber axis is orientated either parallel or perpendicular to the irradiation beam, with the magnetic field always perpendicular to the beam. MC simulations are performed in EGSnrc. The sensitive volume of the chambers is reduced to account for the inefficiency adjacent to the guard electrode (dead volume) based on COMSOL calculations of electric potentials. The magnetic field affects the chamber response by up to 4.1% and 4.5% in the parallel and perpendicular orientations, respectively, compared to no magnetic field. The maximal difference in dose response between experiments and simulations is up to 6.1% and 4.5% for parallel and perpendicular orientation, respectively. When the dead volume is removed, which accounts for the 15%-23% of the nominal volume, the difference, in most cases, is within the stated uncertainties. Nevertheless, for a particular chamber, the reduced nominal volume barely improved the agreement between the experimental and calculated relative response (4.53% to 4.13%). This disagreement may be due to the imperfect chamber geometry model, as was found from microCT images. A detailed uncertainty analysis is presented. The characterization of small-cavity ion chamber response coupled to magnetic fields is complex. Small differences between real and model chamber geometry that normally would be insignificant become an issue in the presence of magnetic fields. Accurate characterization of the nominal volume is essential for small-cavity ion chamber modelling.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".