Camera‐based radiotherapy dosimetry using dual‐material 3D printed scintillator arrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose and objective To describe a methodology for the dual‐material fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printing of plastic scintillator arrays, to characterize their light output under irradiation using an sCMOS camera, and to establish a methodology for the dosimetric calibration of planar array geometries. Materials and methods We have published an investigation into the fabrication and characterization of single element FDM printed scintillators intending to produce customizable dosimeters for radiation therapy applications. 1 This work builds on previous investigations by extending the concept to the production of a high‐resolution (scintillating element size 3 × 3 × 3 mm3) planar scintillator array. The array was fabricated using a BCN3D Epsilon W27 3D printer and composed of polylactic acid (PLA) filament and BCF‐10 plastic scintillator. The array's response was initially characterized using a 20 × 20 cm2 6 MV photon field with a source‐to‐surface (SSD) distance of 100 cm and the beam incident on the top of the array. The light signals emitted under irradiation were imaged using 200 ms exposures from a sCMOS camera positioned at the foot of the treatment couch (210 cm from the array). The collected images were then processed using a purpose‐built software to correct known optical artefacts and determine the light output for each scintillating element. The light output was then corrected for element sensitivity and calibrated to dose using Monte Carlo simulations of the array and irradiation geometry based on the array's digital 3D print model. To assess the accuracy of the array calibration both a 3D beam and a clinical VMAT plan were delivered. Dose measurements using the calibrated array were then compared to EBT3 GAFChromic film and OSLD measurements, as well as Monte Carlo simulations and TPS calculations. Results Our results establish the feasibility of dual‐material 3D printing for the fabrication of custom plastic scintillator arrays. Assessment of the 3D printed scintillators response across each row of the array demonstrated a nonuniform response with an average percentage deviation from the mean of 2.1% ± 2.8%. This remains consistent with our previous work on individual 3D printed scintillators which showed an average difference of 2.3% and a maximum of 4.0% between identically printed scintillators.1 Array dose measurements performed following calibration indicate difficulty in differentiating the scintillator response from ambient background light contamination at low doses (<20–25 cGy) and dose rates (≤100 MU/min). However, when analysis was restricted to exclude dose values less than 10% of the Monte Carlo simulated max dose the average absolute percentage dose difference between Monte Carlo simulation and array measurement was 5.3% ± 4.8% for the fixed beam delivery and 5.4% ± 5.2% for the VMAT delivery Conclusion In this study, we developed and characterized a 3D printed array of plastic scintillators and demonstrated a methodology for the dosimetric calibration of a simple array geometry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".