MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405396674 · doi:10.1002/mp.17575

Accuracy verification of protoacoustic measurements in a heterogeneous phantom by an optical hydrophone

2024· article· en· W4405396674 on OpenAlexaff
Ye Chen, Koki Kasamatsu, Y. Kuriyama, T. Uesugi, Y. Ishi, Sena Hidani, Michael Caulfield, Mehmet Burçin Ünlü, Wolfgang Rohringer, Taeko Matsuura

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsImaging phantomGround truthMaterials scienceOpticsBragg peakBeam (structure)PhysicsDetectorHydrophoneAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Protoacoustics has emerged as a promising real-time range measurement method for proton therapy. Optical hydrophones (OHs) are considered suitable to detect protoacoustic waves owing to their ultracompact size and high sensitivity. In our previous research, we demonstrated that the time-of-arrival (TOA) measured by an OH showed good agreement with the simulated ground truth in a homogeneous medium. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to experimentally evaluate the accuracy of the TOA and compression peak pressures detected by the OH. Protoacoustic waves that undergo the typical distortions occurring in the human body were investigated. In such cases, the use of small detectors such as OHs is desirable to minimize the effects of detector size and directivity. METHODS: A 100-MeV proton pencil beam emitted from a fixed-field alternating gradient accelerator was irradiated onto a homogeneous water phantom and a water phantom with a half- or full-sized silicone plate downstream of the Bragg peak (BP) or a bone plate that covered half of the beam cross-section in the beam path. The OH was shifted 70 mm laterally across the beam axis downstream of the BP to measure the protoacoustic waves. The k-WAVE acoustic wave transport simulation was employed as the ground truth. The TOA and the first compression peak pressures were compared between the simulation and experiment. RESULTS: The TOA deviation against the ground truth was primarily attributed to alignment errors of the measurement devices and phantoms, with deviations of < 1 mm. The peak pressure distribution closely resembled the ground truth, with FWHM differences of 0.0%-3.0% for the tested geometries. CONCLUSION: The OH was able to determine the TOA and peak pressures with sufficient accuracy in heterogeneous phantoms, even without considering the effect of the size of the detector or directivity on the measurements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207