Evaluation of the two‐voltage method for parallel‐plate ionization chambers irradiated with pulsed beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Air‐vented ionization chambers exposed to clinical radiation beams may suffer from recombination during the drift of the charge carriers towards the electrodes. Thus, dosimetry protocols recommend the use of a correction factor, usually denominated saturation factor (), to correct the ionization chamber readout for the incomplete collection of charge. The two‐voltage method (TVM) is the recommended methodology for the calculation of the saturation factor, however, it is based on the early Boag model, which only takes into account the presence of positive and negative ions in the ionization chamber and does not account for the electric field screening or the free electron contribution to the signal. Purpose To evaluate the impact of a more realistic approach to the saturation problem that accounts for the free electron fraction. Methods The saturation factor of four ionization chambers (two Advanced Markus and two PPC05) was experimentally determined in the ultra‐high dose per pulse reference beam of the German National Metrology Institute (Physikalisch‐Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB]) for voltages ranging from 50 to 400 V and pulse durations between 0.5 and 2.9 . Several analytical models and a recently developed numerical model are used to calculate the saturation factor as a function of the dose per pulse and compare it to the obtained experimental data. Parameterizations of the saturation factor against the ratio of charges at different voltages are given for parallel plate ionization chamber with a distance between electrodes of 0.6 and 1 mm in pulsed beams for different pulse durations. Results The saturation factors calculated using the different Boag analytical models do not agree neither with each other nor with the numerical simulation even at the lowest dose per pulse of the investigated range ( 30 mGy). A recently developed analytical model by Fenwick and Kumar agrees with the numerical simulation in the low dose per pulse regime but discrepancies are observed when the dose becomes larger (i.e., 40 mGy for Advanced Markus) due to the electric field perturbation. The numerical simulation is in a good agreement with the experimentally determined charge collection efficiency (CCE) with an average discrepancy of 0.7% for the two PPC05 and 0.5% for the two Advanced Markus. The saturation factor obtained with the numerical simulation of the collected charge has been fitted to a third‐order polynomial for different voltage ratios and pulse duration. This methodology provides a practical way for evaluation whenever . Conclusions The numerical simulation shows a better agreement with the experimental data than the current analytical theories in terms of CCE. The classical TVM, systematically overestimates the saturation factor, with differences increasing with dose per pulse but also present at low dose per pulse. These results may have implications for the dosimetry with ionization chambers in therapy modalities that use a dose per pulse higher than conventional radiotherapy such as intraoperative radiotherapy but also in conventional dose per pulse for ionization chambers that suffer from significant charge recombination.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".