MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400447371 · doi:10.1002/mp.17277

AAPM WGTG51 Report 385: Addendum to the AAPM's TG‐51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high‐energy electron beams

2024· article· en· W4400447371 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan Muir, Stephen Davis, S Dhanesar, Yair Hillman, Viktor Iakovenko, Grace Gwe‐Ya Kim, Victor Gabriel Leandro Alves, Yu Lei, Jessica Lowenstein, James Renaud, Arman Sarfehnia, Jeffrey V. Siebers, L. Tantot

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontHealth Sciences CentreCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimetryAddendumIonization chamberAbsorbed doseMonte Carlo methodCalibrationElectronPhysicsComputational physicsCathode rayIonizationNuclear physicsMaterials scienceAtomic physicsIonNuclear medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An Addendum to the AAPM's TG‐51 protocol for the determination of absorbed dose to water is presented for electron beams with energies between 4 MeV and 22 MeV (). This updated formalism allows simplified calibration procedures, including the use of calibrated cylindrical ionization chambers in all electron beams without the use of a gradient correction. New data are provided for electron beams based on Monte Carlo simulations. Implementation guidance is provided. Components of the uncertainty budget in determining absorbed dose to water at the reference depth are discussed. Specifications for a reference‐class chamber in electron beams include chamber stability, settling, ion recombination behavior, and polarity dependence. Progress in electron beam reference dosimetry is reviewed. Although this report introduces some major changes (e.g., gradient corrections are implicitly included in the electron beam quality conversion factors), they serve to simplify the calibration procedure. Results for absorbed dose per linac monitor unit are expected to be up to approximately 2 % higher using this Addendum compared to using the original TG‐51 protocol.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.049

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207