Dynamic range and optimization strategies for radiochromic film calibration using gradient radiation fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This investigation aimed to optimize gradient positioning for radiochromic film calibration to facilitate a uniform distribution of calibration points. The study investigated the influence of various parameters on gradient dose profiles generated by a physical wedge, assessing their impact on the field's dose dynamic range, a scalar quantity representing the span of absorbed doses. Numerical parameterization of the physical wedge profile was used to visualize and quantify the impact of field size, depth, and energy on the dynamic range of dose gradients. This concept enabled the optimization of the gradient positioning and estimation of the necessary number of exposures for the desired calibration dose range. An optimization algorithm based on histogram bin height minimization was developed and presented. The maximum dynamic range was achieved with a 20 20 field size at 5 cm depth. Optimization of wedge gradient positioning yielded the most uniform dose distribution with 7 exposures for the [1,10] Gy range and 8 exposures for the [1,20] Gy range. Film calibration using gradients centered at 1.6, 3, 3.5, and 7 Gy central axis (CAX), obtained through optimized gradient positioning, was showcased. The presented work demonstrates the potential for an improved film calibration process, with efficient material utilization and enhanced dosimetric accuracy for clinical applications. While the method was described for the use of a physical wedge, the methodology can be easily extended to the use of a more convenient dynamic wedge.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".