MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095806916 · doi:10.3389/fphy.2020.567340

Calorimeter for Real-Time Dosimetry of Pulsed Ultra-High Dose Rate Electron Beams

2020· article· en· W3095806916 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Bourgouin, Andreas Schüller, Thomas Häckel, Rafael Kranzer, Daniela Poppinga, Ralf‐Peter Kapsch, M McEwen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNational Research Council Canada
FundersEuropean Metrology Programme for Innovation and ResearchEuropean Commission
KeywordsDosimeterCalorimeter (particle physics)DosimetryIonization chamberMaterials scienceIonIon beamRadiationBeam (structure)Absorbed doseOpticsAtomic physicsNuclear medicinePhysicsIonizationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An aluminium calorimeter was investigated as a possible real-time dosimeter for electron beams with ultra-high dose per pulse (DPP) as clinical applied at FLASH radiation therapy (1.5 Gy/pulse). Ion chambers, the most widely used active dosimeter type in conventional external beam radiation therapy, suffer very large ion recombination losses at these conditions. Passive dosimeters, as e.g. alanine, are independent of dose rate but do not provide real-time readout. In this work it is shown that the response of alanine is independent of the DPP in the investigated ultra-high DPP range (up to 2.3 Gy/pulse). Alanine dose measurements were then used to determine the ion recombination correction for an Advanced Markus parallel-plate ion chamber at ultra-high DPP. Ion collection losses larger than 50 % were observed. Therefore, ion chambers are not considered suitable for accurate dosimetry in FLASH radiation therapy. As alternative an aluminium open-to-atmosphere calorimeter, operated in quasi-adiabatic mode was investigated at ultra-high DPP electron radiation. The beam pulse charge, and thus the DPP, was varied to evaluate the linearity of the calorimeter response in the DPP range between 0.3 and 1.8 Gy/pulse. On average, the standard deviation of the calorimeter response was 0.1 %. The response was proportional to the DPP in the investigated range. The average deviation of

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysicsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207