MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405389302 · doi:10.1002/acm2.14613

Magnetic field quality conversion factors experimentally measured in clinical MR‐linac beams for seven MR‐compatible ionization chamber models

2024· article· en· W4405389302 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan Orlando, Jennie Crosby, Carri Glide‐Hurst, Wesley S. Culberson, Arman Sarfehnia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsIonization chamberCalibrationLaser beam qualityConversion factorPhysicsIonizationMagnetic fieldLinear particle acceleratorBeam (structure)Quality (philosophy)Nuclear medicineAtomic physicsOpticsIonMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this work was to experimentally quantify MR‐compatible ionization chamber response for 1.5T Elekta Unity and 0.35T ViewRay MRIdian MR‐linac systems through the determination of the magnetic field quality conversion factor, k B,Q . Methods Seven MR‐compatible ionization chamber models from Standard Imaging and PTW were evaluated. Both the quality conversion factor k Q and the magnetic field quality conversion factor k B,Q were experimentally determined through a cross‐calibration method. Specifically, the ratio of absorbed dose measured with a reference A1SL chamber under reference conditions to corrected output measured with each test chamber at the same point of measurement allowed for the determination of k B,Q . The angular dependence of the magnetic field quality conversion factor for MR‐compatible chamber models was assessed for the 1.5T Elekta Unity system by measuring k B,Q with the chamber axis and magnetic field direction aligned at cardinal angles (0°, 90°, 180°, 270°). Results Beam quality conversion ( k Q ) factors for MR‐compatible ionization chambers measured in a standard linac beam showed an average percent difference of −0.09 ± 0.18% compared to computed k Q values for their conventional chamber versions. Similarly, magnetic field quality conversion ( k B,Q ) factors for corresponding MR and non‐MR ionization chamber models measured using the same cross‐calibration technique demonstrated average percent differences of −0.1 ± 0.3% and 0.0 ± 0.2% for the Elekta Unity and ViewRay MRIdian, respectively. Investigation of the angular dependence of this correction factor demonstrated identical chamber response for equivalent MR‐compatible and conventional chamber models. Conclusions This work provides critical experimental validation of MR‐compatible ionization chamber performance, with a direct comparison of measured k B,Q values to corresponding conventional chamber models demonstrating nearly equivalent chamber response. k B,Q values determined using our experimental method will serve as an important reference for upcoming MR‐linac reference dosimetry protocols and ultimately represent an important step towards accurate output calibration of MR‐linac systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207