MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W963884655 · doi:10.1118/1.4923794

SU‐C‐304‐06: Determination of Intermediate Correction Factors for Three Dosimeters in Small Composite Photon Fields Used in Robotic Radiosurgery

2015· article· en· W963884655 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Christiansen, Jason Bélec, Bryan Muir, Eric Vandervoort

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaMcGill UniversityOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimeterCollimatorImaging phantomScintillatorMonte Carlo methodMultileaf collimatorNuclear medicineDetectorMaterials scienceIonization chamberPhysicsPhotonDosimetryOpticsLinear particle acceleratorBiomedical engineeringBeam (structure)MedicineMathematicsIonization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To calculate using Monte‐Carlo the intermediate and total correction factors (CFs) for two microchambers and a plastic scintillator for composite fields delivered by the CyberKnife system. Methods: A linac model was created in BEAMnrc by matching percentage depth dose (PDD) curves and output factors (OFs) measured using an A16 microchamber with Monte Carlo calculations performed in egs_chamber to explicitly model detector response. Intermediate CFs were determined for the A16 and A26 microchambers and the W1 plastic scintillator in fourteen different composite fields inside a solid water phantom. Seven of these fields used a 5 mm diameter collimator; the remaining fields employed a 7.5 mm collimator but were otherwise identical to the first seven. Intermediate CFs are reported relative to the respective CF for a 60 mm collimator (800 mm source to detector distance and 100 mm depth in water). Results: For microchambers in composite fields, the intermediate CFs that account for detector density and volume were the largest contributors to total CFs. The total CFs for the A26 were larger than those for the A16, especially for the 5 mm cone (1.227±0.003 to 1.144±0.004 versus 1.142±0.003 to 1.099±0.004), due to the A26's larger active volume (0.015 cc) relative to the A16 (0.007 cc), despite the A26 using similar wall and electrode material. The W1 total and intermediate CFs are closer to unity, due to its smaller active volume and near water‐equivalent composition, however, 3–4% detector volume corrections are required for 5 mm collimator fields. In fields using the 7.5 mm collimator, the correction is nearly eliminated for the W1 except for a non‐isocentric field. Conclusion: Large and variable CFs are required for microchambers in small composite fields primarily due to density and volume effects. Corrections are reduced but not eliminated for a plastic scintillator in the same fields.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→