Monte Carlo simulated correction factors for high dose rate brachytherapy postal dosimetry audit methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Full-scatter conditions in water are impractical for postal dosimetry audits in brachytherapy. This work presents a method to obtain correction factors that account for deviations from full-scatter water-equivalent conditions for a small plastic phantom. A 16 × 8 × 3 cm phantom (PMMA) with a radiophotoluminescent dosimeter (RPLD) at the centre and two catheters on either side was simulated using Monte Carlo (MC) to calculate correction factors accounting for the lack of scatter, non-water equivalence of the RPLD and phantom, source model and backscatter for HDR 60 Co and 192 Ir sources. The correction factors for non-water equivalence, lack of full scatter, and the use of PMMA were 1.062 ± 0.013, 1.059 ± 0.008 and 0.993 ± 0.009 for 192 Ir and 1.129 ± 0.005, 1.009 ± 0.005 and 1.005 ± 0.005 for 60 Co respectively. Water-equivalent backscatter thickness of 5 cm was found to be adequate and increasing thickness of backscatter did not have an influence on the RPLD dose. The mean photon energy in the RPLD for four HDR 192 Ir sources was 279 ± 2 keV in full scatter conditions and 295 ± 1 keV in the audit conditions. For 60 Co source the corresponding mean energies were 989 ± 1 keV and 1022 ± 1 keV respectively. Correction factors were obtained through the MC simulations for conditions deviating from TG-43, including the amount of back scatter, and the optimum audit set up. Additionally, the influence of different source models on the correction factors was negligible and demonstrates their generic applicability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".