Organic Scintillator-Fibre Sensors for Proton Therapy Dosimetry: SCSF-3HF and EJ-260
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In proton therapy, the dose from secondary neutrons to the patient can contribute to side effects and the creation of secondary cancer. A simple and fast detection system to distinguish between dose from protons and neutrons both in pretreatment verification as well as potentially in vivo monitoring is needed to minimize dose from secondary neutrons. Two 3 mm long, 1 mm diameter organic scintillators were tested for candidacy to be used in a proton–neutron discrimination detector. The SCSF-3HF (1500) scintillating fibre (Kuraray Co. Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan) and EJ-260 plastic scintillator (Eljen Technology, Sweetwater, TX, USA) were irradiated at the TRIUMF Neutron Facility and the Proton Therapy Research Centre. In the proton beam, we compared the raw Bragg peak and spread-out Bragg peak response to the industry standard Markus chamber detector. Both scintillator sensors exhibited quenching at high LET in the Bragg peak, presenting a peak-to-entrance ratio of 2.59 for the EJ-260 and 2.63 for the SCSF-3HF fibre, compared to 3.70 for the Markus chamber. The SCSF-3HF sensor demonstrated 1.3 times the sensitivity to protons and 3 times the sensitivity to neutrons as compared to the EJ-260 sensor. Combined with our equations relating neutron and proton contributions to dose during proton irradiations, and the application of Birks’ quenching correction, these fibres provide valid candidates for inexpensive and replicable proton-neutron discrimination detectors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".