MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207058645 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ac309f

Monte Carlo calculation of the TG-43 dosimetry parameters for the INTRABEAM source with spherical applicators

2021· article· en· W3207058645 on OpenAlexafffund
David Santiago Ayala Alvarez, Peter Watson, Marija Popović, Veng Jean Heng, Michael D. Evans, Jan Seuntjens

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsDosimetryKermaMonte Carlo methodBrachytherapyCalibrationNuclear medicineDose ratePhysicsPoint sourceMaterials scienceComputational physicsOpticsMedical physicsMathematicsMedicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: 245041). The current study focuses on the dosimetry characterization of the INTRABEAM source with the eight available spherical applicators according to the TG-43 formalism using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. APPROACH: This report includes the calculated dose-rate conversion coefficients that determine the absolute dose rate to water at a reference point of 10 mm from the applicator surface, based on calibration air-kerma rate measurements at 50 cm from the source on its transverse plane. Since the air-kerma rate measurements are not yet provided from a standards laboratory for the INTRABEAM, the values in the present study were calculated with MC. This approach is aligned with other works in the search for standardization of the dosimetry of electronic brachytherapy sources. As a validation of the MC model, depth dose calculations along the source axis were compared with calibration data from the source manufacturer. MAIN RESULTS: The calculated dose-rate conversion coefficients were 434.0 for the bare probe, and 683.5, 548.3, 449.9, 376.5, 251.0, 225.6, 202.8, and 182.6 for the source with applicators of increasing diameter from 15 to 50 mm, respectively. The radial dose and the 2D anisotropy functions of the TG-43 formalism were also obtained and tabulated in this document. SIGNIFICANCE: This work presents the data required by a treatment planning system for the characterization of the INTRABEAM system in the context of intraoperative radiotherapy applications.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207