Development of a mailed dosimetry audit system for radiation therapy in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this work was to develop and trial a mailed audit system for external beam radiation therapy, traceable to the Canadian National Metrology Institute, with an overall uncertainty comparable to calibrated secondary standard reference detectors. Alanine was chosen as the dosimeter to be used for the audit system. After a detailed investigation of influence quantities, a complete uncertainty budget was constructed, indicating a relative standard uncertainty in the desired quantity – absorbed dose to water – of around 0.9 %. The complete system was then validated by comparison with the standard maintained by the National Physical Laboratory in the UK. The comparison between the two alanine systems at the two laboratories showed agreement at the 0.5 % level. A hermitically-sealed dosimeter holder was developed for simplicity of use and to reproduce the geometry of standard clinical dosimeters. Eleven cancer centres across Canada participated in the initial trial. The mean ratio of the dose measured using alanine, relative to the dose delivered was found to be 1.010 with a relative standard uncertainty of 0.6 %. These investigations have confirmed the suitability of the alanine system, both in terms of ease-of-use and accuracy, for mailed audit dose measurements in Canada.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it