Characterization of a new low‐dose and low‐energy Gafchromic film LD‐V1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To characterize the dose‐response, energy dependence, postexposure changes, orientation dependence, and spatial capabilities of LD‐V1, a new low‐dose Gafchromic film for low‐energy x‐ray dosimetry. Methods A single sheet of LD‐V1 Gafchromic film was cut into 15 × 20 mm2 rectangles with a notch to track orientation. Eight different doses between 5 and 320 mGy were delivered by an MXR‐160/22 x‐ray tube using x‐ray beams of 90, 100, and 120 kVp filtered with 3 mm of Al and 2 mm of Ti. The 120 kVp films were scanned at 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 168 h postexposure in portrait orientation and additionally scanned in landscape orientation at 24 h. The 90 and 100 kVp films were scanned at 24 h postexposure in portrait orientation. Lastly, a 20 × 200 mm2 strip of film was irradiated using a thin‐slit imaging collimator and scanned 24 h postexposure to test the film performance in an x‐ray imaging application. Results Of the three color channels, the red channel was found to produce a dose‐response curve with a large range of net optical density (netOD) values across the considered dose range. A prominent energy dependence was discovered, resulting in dose discrepancies on the scale of 17 mGy between 90 and 120 kVp for a dose of 80 mGy. The measured postexposure changes suggest that the calibration irradiation‐to‐scan time should be longer than 12 h with a ± 4 h scanning time window for dose errors of <0.5%. An average dose difference of 3.4% was found between the two scanning orientations. Lastly, noise of 4% was measured in the thin slit collimator film for a dose of 30 mGy. Conclusions We have characterized the LD‐V1 film for low‐energy, low‐dose x‐ray dosimetry. Energy, scan‐time, and orientation dependencies should be considered when using this film.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".