MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090762620 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/abbd16

Proton therapy range verification method via delayed <i>γ</i> -ray spectroscopy of a molybdenum tumour marker

2020· article· en· W3090762620 on OpenAlexafffund
C. Burbadge, Eva Kasanda, V. Bildstein, G Dublin, B. Olaizola, C. Höhr, D. Mücher

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsTRIUMFUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProtonScintillatorProton therapyBeam (structure)Range (aeronautics)MolybdenumMaterials scienceIrradiationBerylliumAtomic physicsNuclear physicsPhysicsOpticsDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this work, a new method of range verification for proton therapy (PT) is experimentally demonstrated for the first time. If a metal marker is implanted near the tumour site, its response to proton activation will result in the emission of characteristic γ rays. The relative intensity of γ rays originating from competing fusion-evaporation reaction channels provides a unique signature of the average proton energy at the marker, and by extension the beam’s range, in vivo and in real time. The clinical feasibility of this method was investigated at the PT facility at TRIUMF with a proof-of-principle experiment which irradiated a naturally-abundant molybdenum foil at various proton beam energies. Delayed characteristic γ rays were measured with two Compton-shielded LaBr 3 scintillators. The technique was successfully demonstrated by relating the relative intensity of two γ -ray peaks to the energy of the beam at the Mo target, opening the door to future clinical applications where the range of the beam can be verified in real time.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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