MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200401577 · doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.12.012

Monte Carlo calculated beam quality correction factors for two cylindrical ionization chambers in photon beams

2021· article· en· W4200401577 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamad Alissa, Klemens Zink, Frédéric Tessier, A Schoenfeld, Damian Czarnecki

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysica Medica · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIonization chamberDosimetryMonte Carlo methodIonizationLaser beam qualityBeam (structure)PhotonPhysicsRange (aeronautics)Absorbed doseComputational physicsAtomic physicsMaterials scienceNuclear medicineOpticsStatisticsMathematicsIonMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Although several studies provide data for reference dosimetry, the SNC600c and SNC125c ionization chambers (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL) are in clinical use worldwide for which no beam quality correction factors k Q are available. The goal of this study was to calculate beam quality correction factors k Q for these ionization chambers according to dosimetry protocols TG-51, TRS 398 and DIN 6800-2. Methods Monte Carlo simulations using EGSnrc have been performed to calculate the absorbed dose to water and the dose to air within the active volume of ionization chamber models. Both spectra and simulations of beam transport through linear accelerator head models were used as radiation sources for the Monte Carlo calculations. Results k Q values as a function of the respective beam quality specifier Q were fitted against recommended equations for photon beam dosimetry in the range of 4 MV to 25 MV. The fitting curves through the calculated values showed a root mean square deviation between 0.0010 and 0.0017. Conclusions The investigated ionization chamber models (SNC600c, SNC125c) are not included in above mentioned dosimetry protocols, but are in clinical use worldwide. This study covered this knowledge gap and compared the calculated results with published k Q values for similar ionization chambers. Agreements with published data were observed in the 95% confidence interval, confirming the use of data for similar ionization chambers, when there are no k Q values available for a given ionization chamber.

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)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysica MedicaSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207