MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the comparison of two NIPAM gel dosimeters with high resolution 3D MRI sequences

2023· article· en· W4388698856 on OpenAlexaff
M. Cinq-Mars, J-D Jutras, Luc Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimeterImaging phantomIrradiationMaterials sciencePolymerizationMonomerPolymerNuclear medicineDosimetryBiomedical engineeringPhysicsMedicineNuclear physicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Polymer gel dosimeters allow the measurement of a dose distribution in 3 dimensions. Irradiation induces polymerization reactions in the long chains of the gel molecules, which is characterized by a change in the transverse relaxation time T2. Gel dosimetry is mainly advantageous for its high resolution, but can also be expensive. The main goal of this project is to compare two normoxic polymer gel recipes made with NIPAM as monomer. The analysis is based on the quality of the images obtained for a fixed MRI scan time and a comparative cost of analysis of each 1L phantom. The ΔT2 maps are obtained by scanning the gels before and after irradiation with 3D sequences and the DESPOT2 technique is used to reconstruct the T2 maps. The phantoms were irradiated with 8 photon beams of 6 MV with a fixed 250 MU, 4 at two opposite sides of the jar (AP-PA configuration), to obtain 4 dose distributions of 4.7 Gy, 8.9 Gy, 13.2 Gy and 17.3 Gy. The SNR is then determined in the ΔT2 maps in function of the dose step and the concentration of NIPAM in the phantom. The first gel phantom is made with 15% NIPAM and has a total cost of $1561.65, including products and MRI scan costs. The SNR obtained for the 4 dose steps are 10.02, 31.18, 45.12 and 37.54. The contrast between the T2 before and after the irradiation in the 4 regions of dose are 0.45, 0.66, 0.78 and 0.85. The second phantom contained 5% NIPAM, cost 1186.85$ and the SNR obtained are 16.80, 27.08, 30.11 and 26.17 and the ΔT2 are of 0.61, 0.75, 0.79 and 0.77 for the 4 dose steps respectively. The comparison of the two recipes has shown that the increase of NIPAM concentration does not allow a significant increase in image quality for MRI. The recipe with 5% of NIPAM has a lower dynamic range but a better sensitivity at lower dose and is less expensive than the one with 15% of NIPAM. The results also show that by increasing the NIPAM concentration 3-fold, the cost of a 1L phantom increases by 30%.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207