Technical note: Determination of CQ$C_{Q}$ for a miniature x‐ray source using a soft x‐ray ionization chamber calibrated in NIST reference beam qualities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The formalism proposed by Watson et al. allows users of the INTRABEAM (Carl Zeiss Medical AG, Jena, Germany) electronic brachytherapy system to accurately determine the absorbed dose to water, in the absence of a primary dosimetry standard. However, all published values are for PTW 34013 ionization chambers calibrated in a TW30 reference beam, traceable to PTB (Germany). For North American users, it would be advantageous to have data for chambers calibrated in a kV reference beam maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Purpose In this work, we determine for a PTW 34013 chamber calibrated in three NIST‐traceable reference beams: M30, L40, and L50. Methods Using available photon spectra data for M30, L40, and L50 reference beam qualities, Monte Carlo simulations using EGSnrc were performed to calculate the ratio of the absorbed dose to the PTW 34013 chamber air cavity to air‐kerma () for these beams. From this ratio, as a function of depth in water was determined. The effect of the use of a buildup foil was also investigated. An uncertainty analysis considering both the Type A and Type B uncertainties in the calculation of was performed. Results The largest difference in was found between L50 and TW30, with a relative decrease of 1.4% (no buildup) to 1.6% (buildup). For M30 and L40, the differences were minimal compared with measurement uncertainties. Conclusions We report values for three NIST‐traceable kV reference beams. This study reinforces the feasibility of adapting the Watson et al. methodology using different kV reference beams, facilitating the use of INTRABEAM in North America and ensuring the continuity and accuracy of dosimetry standards in intraoperative radiation therapy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".