Monte Carlo simulations of EBT3 film dose deposition for percentage depth dose (PDD) curve evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To use Monte Carlo (MC) calculations to evaluate the effects of Gafchromic EBT3 film orientation on percentage depth dose (PDD) curves. Methods Dose deposition in films placed in a water phantom, and oriented either parallel or perpendicular with respect to beam axis, were simulated with MC and compared to PDDs scored in a homogenous water phantom. The effects of introducing 0.01–1.00 mm air gaps on each side of the film as well as a small 1°‐3° tilt for film placed in parallel orientation were studied. PDDs scored based on two published EBT3 film compositions were compared. Three photon beam energies of 120 kVp, 220 kVp, and 6 MV and three field sizes between 1 × 1 and 5 × 5 cm 2 were considered. Experimental PDDs for a 6‐MV 3 × 3 cm 2 beam were acquired. Results PDD curves for films in perpendicular orientation more closely agreed to water PDDs than films placed in parallel orientation. The maximum difference between film and water PDD for films in parallel orientation was −12.9% for the 220 kVp beam. For the perpendicular film orientation, the maximum difference decreased to 5.7% for the 120 kVp beam. The inclusion of an air gap had the largest effect on the 6‐MV 1 × 1 cm 2 beam, for which the dose in the buildup region was underestimated by 21.2% compared to the simulation with no air gap. A 2° film tilt decreased the difference between the parallel film and homogeneous water phantom PDDs from −5.0% to −0.5% for the 6 MV 3 × 3 cm 2 beam. The “newer” EBT3 film composition resulted in larger PDD discrepancies than the previous composition. Experimental film data qualitatively agreed with MC simulations. Conclusions PDD measurements with films should either be performed with film in perpendicular orientation to the beam axis or in parallel orientation with a ~ 2º tilt and no air gaps.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".