MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217643334 · doi:10.1017/s1460396921000662

Investigation of field output factors using IAEA-AAPM TRS-483 code of practice recommendations and Monte Carlo simulation for 6 MV photon beams

2021· article· en· W3217643334 on OpenAlexaff
Sumalee Yabsantia, Sivalee Suriyapee, N. Phaisangittisakul, Sornjarod Oonsiri, Taweap Sanghangthum, Jan Seuntjens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Radiotherapy in Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodDetectorField (mathematics)Code of practiceDosimetryPhysicsComputational physicsPhotonField sizeOpticsNuclear medicineMathematicsStatisticsBeam (structure)EngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: This study aims to experimentally determine field output factors using the methodologies suggested by the IAEA-AAPM TRS-483 for small field dosimetry and compare with the calculation from Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. Methods: The IBA-CC01, Sun Nuclear EDGE and IBA-SFD detectors were employed to determine the uncorrected and the corrected field output factors for 6 MV photon beams. Measurements were performed at 100 cm source to axis distance, 10 cm depth in water, and the field sizes ranged from 1 × 1 to 10 × 10 cm2. The use of field output correction factors proposed by the TRS-483 was utilised to determine field output factors. The measured field output factors were compared to that calculated using the egs_chamber user code. Results: The decrease in the percentage standard deviation of the measured three detectors was observed after applying the field output correction factors. Measured field output factors using CC01 and EDGE detectors agreed with MC values within 3% for field sizes down to 1 × 1 cm2, except the SFD detector. Conclusions: The corrected field output factors agree with the calculation from MC, except the SFD detector. CC01 and EDGE are suitable for determining field output factors, while the SFD may need more implementation of the intermediate field method.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Radiotherapy in PracticeSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207