Performance of the HYPERSCINT scintillation dosimetry research platform for the 1.5 T MR-linac
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. Adaptive radiotherapy techniques available on the MR-linac, such as daily plan adaptation, gating, and dynamic tracking, require versatile dosimetric detectors to validate end-to-end workflows. Plastic scintillator detectors (PSDs) offer great potential with features including: water equivalency, MRI-compatibility, and time-resolved dose measurements. Here, we characterize the performance of the HYPERSCINT RP-200 PSD (MedScint, Quebec, CA) in a 1.5 T MR-linac, and we demonstrate its suitability for dosimetry, including in a moving target. Approach. Standard techniques of detector testing were performed using a Beamscan water tank (PTW, Freiburg, DE) and compared to microDiamond (PTW, Freiburg, DE) readings. Orientation dependency was tested using the same phantom. An RW3 solid water phantom was used to evaluate detector consistency, dose linearity, and dose rate dependence. To determine the sensitivity to motion and to MRI scanning, the Quasar MRI4D phantom (Modus, London, ON) was used statically or with sinusoidal motion (A = 10 mm, T = 4 s) to compare PSD and Semiflex ionization chamber (PTW, Freiburg, DE) readings. Conformal beams from gantry 0° and 90° were used as well as a 15-beam 8 × 7.5 Gy lung IMRT plan. Main results. Measured profiles, PDD curves and field-size dependence were consistent with the microDiamond readings with differences well within our clinical tolerances. The angular dependence gave variations up to 0.8% when not irradiating directly from behind the scintillation point. Experiments revealed excellent detector consistency between repeated measurements (SD = 0.06%), near-perfect dose linearity (R 2 = 1) and a dose rate dependence <0.3%. Dosimetric effects of MRI scanning (≤0.3%) and motion (≤1.3%) were minimal. Measurements were consistent with the Semiflex (differences ≤1%), and with the treatment planning system with differences of 0.8% and 0.4%, with and without motion. Significance. This study demonstrates the suitability of the HYPERSCINT PSD for accurate time-resolved dosimetry measurements in the 1.5 T MR-linac, including during MR scanning and target motion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".