pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.04933 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-05 · ⚛️ physics.med-ph

Characterization of a novel plastic scintillation detector for in vivo electron dosimetry

Cornelius J. Bauer , Frank Schneider , Ida D. G\"obel , Hans Oppitz , Frank A. Giordano , Jens Fleckenstein This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 19:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.med-ph
keywords plastic scintillation detectorelectron beam dosimetryin vivo dosimetrysurface doseCherenkov radiation correctionradiotherapydosimetry characterization
0
0 comments X

The pith

A novel plastic scintillation detector delivers surface dose measurements in electron beams that agree with ionization chambers to 1.3% on average.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper characterizes a novel plastic scintillation detector for real-time in vivo dosimetry in electron beams, where such methods have not been widely established. Using dual-channel correction for Cherenkov radiation, the authors compare the detector's performance to ionization chambers for linearity, dose rate independence, isotropy, reproducibility, depth-dose curves, profiles, and output factors. Surface dose tests on solid water and an anthropomorphic phantom show average deviations of 1.3% from chamber measurements and 2.1% from film. The results indicate the detector meets clinical standards with variations under 2% and depth parameters accurate to within 1 mm, making it promising for applications requiring minimal interference with the beam.

Core claim

The authors establish that their plastic scintillation detector is suitable for clinically acceptable electron beam dosimetry, as evidenced by its linearity, dose rate independence, isotropy, reproducibility with total variation below 2%, agreement in depth dose parameters R50 and R80 within 1 mm, lateral profiles with mean absolute error below 1.5%, small field output within 2%, and surface doses agreeing to 1.3% with ionization chambers and 2.1% with radiochromic film.

What carries the argument

Dual-channel Cherenkov radiation correction that separates the scintillation signal from the unwanted Cherenkov light generated in the fiber.

If this is right

  • The PSD can provide real-time dosimetry during electron beam treatments.
  • Surface dose measurements become possible with accuracy comparable to ionization chambers and film.
  • The detector maintains performance across various field sizes and depths in electron beams.
  • It offers high spatial resolution suitable for in vivo applications.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This approach may extend to other radiation types if Cherenkov correction is adapted.
  • Integration with treatment machines could allow for adaptive radiotherapy based on real-time dose feedback.
  • Future studies might test it in clinical patient scenarios to confirm in vivo performance.

Load-bearing premise

The dual-channel Cherenkov radiation correction accurately isolates the scintillation signal without residual artifacts or added uncertainty in the electron beam environment.

What would settle it

A surface dose measurement with the PSD that deviates by more than 5% from the ionization chamber result in a standard electron beam setup on a solid water phantom would contradict the claim of clinical acceptability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04933 by Cornelius J. Bauer, Frank A. Giordano, Frank Schneider, Hans Oppitz, Ida D. G\"obel, Jens Fleckenstein.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: PDD comparison measuring with AM (solid line) and SD (dashed line). The curves align for all energies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Introduction: Real-time dosimetry of surface doses in electron beams has not been widely established yet. Plastic scintillation detectors (PSD) promise high spatial resolution and real-time dosimetry with minimum perturbation of the radiation field. This study characterizes a novel PSD in an electron beam to determine its suitability for in vivo dosimetry. Methods: Dual-channel Cherenkov radiation correction and dosimetric characterization of the PSD were investigated using reference ionization chambers. Percentage depth-dose curves, lateral profiles, and output factors were compared with reference ionization chamber measurements. Surface doses were measured on solid water and on an anthropomorphic phantom and were compared to ionization chamber and radiochromic film measurements. Results: The investigated PSD demonstrated clinically acceptable linearity, dose rate independence, isotropy and reproducibility (total variation <2%). Dosimetric deviation in R50 and R80 were below 1.0 mm and lateral profiles agreed with a mean absolute error below 1.5%. Small field measurements were within 2% of the reference ionization chamber results. Surface dose measurements had mean relative deviations of 1.3% from ionization chamber measurements and 2.1% from radiochromic film measurements. Conclusion: The PSD investigated in this study is suitable for clinically acceptable electron beam dosimetry and provides accurate dosimetric results for surface dose measurements. It has the potential to be used for real-time in vivo dosimetry.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript characterizes a novel plastic scintillation detector (PSD) for in vivo electron dosimetry. It investigates dual-channel Cherenkov radiation correction and compares percentage depth-dose curves, lateral profiles, output factors, and surface doses measured on solid water and anthropomorphic phantoms to reference ionization chamber and radiochromic film measurements. The PSD shows clinically acceptable performance with total variation <2%, deviations in R50/R80 below 1.0 mm, lateral profiles MAE <1.5%, small field within 2%, and surface dose mean deviations of 1.3% vs chamber and 2.1% vs film, concluding suitability for real-time in vivo dosimetry.

Significance. Should the results be confirmed with more detailed uncertainty analysis, this PSD could fill an important niche for real-time surface dose monitoring in electron beam radiotherapy, where such dosimetry is not widely established. The use of independent reference standards for validation is a strength, supporting potential clinical adoption for high-resolution, low-perturbation measurements.

major comments (1)
  1. [Methods] Methods: The dual-channel Cherenkov radiation correction is central to isolating the scintillation signal for dosimetric characterization and surface dose comparisons. The manuscript does not quantify post-correction Cherenkov leakage or residual bias, despite variations in Cherenkov yield with depth, field size, and phantom material in electron beams. This is load-bearing for the reported surface dose accuracy (mean relative deviations of 1.3% vs. ionization chamber and 2.1% vs. film) and the claim of total variation <2%.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract notes small deviations but lacks full details on setup, uncertainty budgets, and potential confounders such as temperature or cable effects; these should be expanded in the main text for transparency.
  2. [Results] Results: Adding explicit uncertainty estimates or error bars to the reported mean deviations would strengthen assessment of the clinically acceptable performance claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and the recommendation for major revision. We have addressed the single major comment by agreeing that additional quantification is warranted and committing to revisions that strengthen the description of the Cherenkov correction without altering the original experimental data or conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods: The dual-channel Cherenkov radiation correction is central to isolating the scintillation signal for dosimetric characterization and surface dose comparisons. The manuscript does not quantify post-correction Cherenkov leakage or residual bias, despite variations in Cherenkov yield with depth, field size, and phantom material in electron beams. This is load-bearing for the reported surface dose accuracy (mean relative deviations of 1.3% vs. ionization chamber and 2.1% vs. film) and the claim of total variation <2%.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that an explicit quantification of residual Cherenkov leakage after dual-channel correction would strengthen the manuscript, given that Cherenkov yield can vary with depth, field size, and phantom material. The original manuscript applies the standard dual-channel correction but does not report a direct estimate of post-correction residual bias. The observed agreement with independent reference detectors (1.3% mean deviation versus ionization chamber and 2.1% versus film) across multiple conditions provides indirect support that any residual is small enough to remain within the stated clinical tolerances. To address the comment directly, we will revise the Methods section to describe how residual bias is estimated from the channel difference in low-scintillation reference conditions and will add corresponding results confirming that the residual remains below the level that would affect the reported total variation or surface-dose accuracies. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: experimental validation against independent references

full rationale

This is an experimental characterization paper that measures PSD performance (linearity, isotropy, surface dose) by direct comparison to external reference standards including ionization chambers and radiochromic film. No first-principles derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the provided abstract or described methods. The dual-channel Cherenkov correction is a procedural step whose accuracy is assessed via the same independent benchmarks rather than being defined into the result. The study is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives a non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard dosimetry assumptions and reference instrument accuracy rather than new free parameters or invented entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Reference ionization chambers and radiochromic film provide accurate ground-truth dose measurements in the electron beam setups used.
    Invoked throughout the methods and results for all comparative validations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5788 in / 1226 out tokens · 44594 ms · 2026-05-18T19:08:07.124922+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Review of electron beam therapy physics

    Hogstrom KR, Almond PR. Review of electron beam therapy physics. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(13):R455-

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    doi:10.1088/0031-9155/51/13/R25

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-9155/51/13/r25

  3. [3]

    Multiple secondary cutane ous tumours following electron beam radiotherapy for cutaneous malignancies of the scalp

    Wolfe CM, Green WH, Hatfield HK, Shakar TJ, Baniahmad O, Cognetta AB. Multiple secondary cutane ous tumours following electron beam radiotherapy for cutaneous malignancies of the scalp. Australas J Dermatol. 2012;53(3):233-238. doi:10.1111/j.1440-0960.2012.00917.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1440-0960.2012.00917.x 2012

  4. [4]

    Quantitative approaches in electron skin collimation for the practical benefits

    Wang D, Polignani JA. Quantitative approaches in electron skin collimation for the practical benefits. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024;25(4):e14236. doi:10.1002/acm2.14236

    work page doi:10.1002/acm2.14236 2024

  5. [5]

    Recommendations for clinical electron beam dosimetry: supplement to the recommendations of Task Group 25

    Gerbi BJ, Antolak JA, Deibel FC, et al. Recommendations for clinical electron beam dosimetry: supplement to the recommendations of Task Group 25. Med Phys. 2009;36(7):3239-3279. doi:10.1118/1.3125820

    work page doi:10.1118/1.3125820 2009

  6. [6]

    Gafchromic EBT3 film dosimetry in electron be ams - energy dependence and improved film read -out

    Sipilä P, Ojala J, Kaijaluoto S, Jokelainen I, Kosunen A. Gafchromic EBT3 film dosimetry in electron be ams - energy dependence and improved film read -out. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(1):360 -373. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v17i1.5970

    work page doi:10.1120/jacmp.v17i1.5970 2016

  7. [7]

    Bufacchi A, Carosi A, Adorante N, et al

    18. Bufacchi A, Carosi A, Adorante N, et al. In vivo EBT radiochromic film dosimetry of electron beam for Total Skin Electron Therapy (TSET). Phys Med. 2007;23(2):67-72. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2007.03.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2007.03.003 2007

  8. [8]

    Characterization of a new radiochromic film (LD-V1) using mammographic be am qualities

    Nakajima E, Sato H. Characterization of a new radiochromic film (LD-V1) using mammographic be am qualities. Z Med Phys. 2025;35(2):169-176. doi:10.1016/j.zemedi.2023.05.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.zemedi.2023.05.004 2025

  9. [9]

    Small field electron beam dosimetry using MOSFET detector

    Amin MN, Heaton R, Norrlinger B, Islam MK. Small field electron beam dosimetry using MOSFET detector. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010;12(1):3267. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v12i1.3267

    work page doi:10.1120/jacmp.v12i1.3267 2010

  10. [10]

    Real -time in vivo dosimetry using micro-MOSFET detectors during intraoperative electron beam radiation therapy in early -stage breast cancer

    Ciocca M, Piazzi V, Lazzari R, et al. Real -time in vivo dosimetry using micro-MOSFET detectors during intraoperative electron beam radiation therapy in early -stage breast cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2006;78(2):213-216. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2005.11.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2005.11.011 2006

  11. [11]

    Characterization of the response of commercial diode detectors use d for in vivo dosimetry

    Meiler RJ, Podgorsak MB. Characterization of the response of commercial diode detectors use d for in vivo dosimetry. Med Dosim. 1997;22(1):31-37. doi:10.1016/s0958-3947(96)00152-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0958-3947(96)00152-5 1997

  12. [12]

    Electron beam dose perturbations caused by diode detectors used for in vivo dosimetry: Gafchromic film dose measurements in a re alistic pelvic prosthesis phantom

    Ade N, Du Plessis FCP. Electron beam dose perturbations caused by diode detectors used for in vivo dosimetry: Gafchromic film dose measurements in a re alistic pelvic prosthesis phantom. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2018;151:232-238

    work page 2018

  13. [14]

    Water-equivalent plastic scintillation detectors for high-energy be am dosimetry: I

    Beddar AS, Mackie TR, Attix FH. Water-equivalent plastic scintillation detectors for high-energy be am dosimetry: I. Physical characteristics and theoretical consideration. Phys Med Biol. 1992;37(10):1883-

    work page 1992

  14. [15]

    doi:10.1088/0031-9155/37/10/006

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-9155/37/10/006

  15. [17]

    Review of plastic and liquid scintillation dosimetry for photon, electron, and proton therapy

    Beaulieu L, Beddar S. Review of plastic and liquid scintillation dosimetry for photon, electron, and proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(20):R305-R343. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/61/20/R305

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-9155/61/20/r305 2016

  16. [18]

    Characterisation of a plastic scintillation detector to be used in a multicentre stereotactic radiosurgery dosimetry audit

    Dimitriadis A, Patallo IS, Billas I, Duane S, Nisbet A, Clark CH. Characterisation of a plastic scintillation detector to be used in a multicentre stereotactic radiosurgery dosimetry audit. Radiat Phys Che m. 2017;140:373-378

    work page 2017

  17. [19]

    Plastic scintillator -based dosimeters for ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) electron radiotherapy

    Ciarrocchi E, Ravera E, Cavalieri A, et al. Plastic scintillator -based dosimeters for ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) electron radiotherapy. Phys Med. 2024;121:103360. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.103360

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.103360 2024

  18. [20]

    Point scintillator dosimetry in ultra-high dose rate ele ctron “FLASH” radiation therapy: A first characterization

    Vanreusel V, Gasparini A, Galante F, et al. Point scintillator dosimetry in ultra-high dose rate ele ctron “FLASH” radiation therapy: A first characterization. Phys Med. 20 22;103:127-137. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2022.10.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2022.10.005 2022

  19. [21]

    A comprehensive investigation of the performance of a comme rcial scintillator system for applications in electron FLASH radiotherapy

    Liu K, Holmes S, Schüler E, Beddar S. A comprehensive investigation of the performance of a comme rcial scintillator system for applications in electron FLASH radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2024;51(6):4504-4512. doi:10.1002/mp.17030

    work page doi:10.1002/mp.17030 2024

  20. [22]

    Characterization of a Time-Resolved, Real-Time Scintillation Dosimetry System for Ultra-High Dose-Rate Radiation Therapy Applications

    Baikalov A, Tho D, Liu K, Bartzsch S, Beddar S, Schüler E. Characterization of a Time-Resolved, Real-Time Scintillation Dosimetry System for Ultra-High Dose-Rate Radiation Therapy Applications. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2025;121(5):1372-1383. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.11.092 15

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.11.092 2025

  21. [23]

    Dealing with Cerenkov radiation generated in organic scintillator dosimeters by bremsstrahlung beams

    Clift MA, Sutton RA, Webb DV. Dealing with Cerenkov radiation generated in organic scintillator dosimeters by bremsstrahlung beams. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45(5):1165 -1182. doi:10.1088/0031- 9155/45/5/307

    work page doi:10.1088/0031- 2000

  22. [24]

    Plastic scintillation dosimetry: optimization of light collection efficiency

    Beddar AS, Law S, Suchowerska N, Mackie TR. Plastic scintillation dosimetry: optimization of light collection efficiency. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48(9):1141-1152. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/48/9/305

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-9155/48/9/305 2003

  23. [25]

    Blue Physics model 11: instructions for use

    Blue Physics LLC. Blue Physics model 11: instructions for use. Version 1.1. 2023

    work page 2023

  24. [26]

    Characteristics of a plastic scintillation detector in photon beam dosimetry

    Das IJ, Sohn JJ, Lim SN, Sengupta B, Feijoo M, Yadav P. Characteristics of a plastic scintillation detector in photon beam dosimetry. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024;25(1):e14209. doi:10.1002/acm2.14209

    work page doi:10.1002/acm2.14209 2024

  25. [27]

    Commissioning an Exradin W2 plastic scintillation detector for clinical use in small radiation fields

    Jacqmin DJ, Miller JR, Barraclough BA, Labby ZE. Commissioning an Exradin W2 plastic scintillation detector for clinical use in small radiation fields. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022;23(8):e13728. doi:10.1002/acm2.13728

    work page doi:10.1002/acm2.13728 2022

  26. [28]

    AAPM’s TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high- energy photon and electron beams

    Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, et al. AAPM’s TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high- energy photon and electron beams. Med Phys. 1999;26(9):1847-1870. doi:10.1118/1.598691

    work page doi:10.1118/1.598691 1999

  27. [29]

    Rapid and reversible adaptation of a clinical linear accelerator for electron FLASH radiotherapy

    Schneider F, Bauer CJ, Göbel ID, et al. Rapid and reversible adaptation of a clinical linear accelerator for electron FLASH radiotherapy. Phys Med. 2025;136:105032. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2025.105032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2025.105032 2025

  28. [30]

    Influence of magnetic field on a novel scintillation dosimeter in a 1.5 T MR-linac

    Oolbekkink S, van Asselen B, Woodings SJ, et al. Influence of magnetic field on a novel scintillation dosimeter in a 1.5 T MR-linac. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024;25(1):e14180. doi:10.1002/acm2.14180

    work page doi:10.1002/acm2.14180 2024

  29. [31]

    Dosimetric characterization of a novel commercial plastic scintillation detector with an MR-Linac

    Ferrer C, Hue rtas C, García D, Sáez M. Dosimetric characterization of a novel commercial plastic scintillation detector with an MR-Linac. Med Phys. 2023;50(4):2525-2539. doi:10.1002/mp.16204

    work page doi:10.1002/mp.16204 2023

  30. [32]

    Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators

    Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, et al. Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys. 2009;36(9):4197-4212. doi:10.1118/1.3190392

    work page doi:10.1118/1.3190392 2009

  31. [33]

    Characterization of the plastic scintillation detector Exradin W2 for small field dosimetry

    Galavis PE, Hu L, Holmes S, Das IJ. Characterization of the plastic scintillation detector Exradin W2 for small field dosimetry. Med Phys. 2019;46(5):2468-2476. doi:10.1002/mp.13501

    work page doi:10.1002/mp.13501 2019

  32. [34]

    Characterization of the Exradin W1 scintillator for use in radiothe rapy

    Carrasco P, Jornet N, Jordi O, et al. Characterization of the Exradin W1 scintillator for use in radiothe rapy. Med Phys. 2015;42(1):297-304. doi:10.1118/1.4903757

    work page doi:10.1118/1.4903757 2015

  33. [35]

    Post-mastectomy radiotherapy: Impact of bolus thickness and irradiation technique on skin dose

    Miéville FA, Pitteloud N, Achard V, et al. Post-mastectomy radiotherapy: Impact of bolus thickness and irradiation technique on skin dose. Z Med Phys. 2024;34(4):542-554. doi:10.1016/j.zemedi.2023.03.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.zemedi.2023.03.004 2024

  34. [36]

    Effect of bolus materials on dose deposition in deep tissues during ele ctron beam radiotherapy

    Kong D, Wu J, Kong X, et al. Effect of bolus materials on dose deposition in deep tissues during ele ctron beam radiotherapy. J Radiat Res. 2024;65(2):215-222. doi:10.1093/jrr/rrae001

    work page doi:10.1093/jrr/rrae001 2024

  35. [37]

    Electron beam characteristics at extende d source -to-surface distances for irregular cut-outs

    Arunkumar T, Supe SS, Ravikumar M, Sathiyan S, Ganesh M. Electron beam characteristics at extende d source -to-surface distances for irregular cut-outs. J Med Phys. 2010;35(4):207-214. doi:10.4103/0971- 6203.71763

    work page doi:10.4103/0971- 2010

  36. [38]

    Shaping success: clinical implementation of a 3D-printed ele ctron cutout program in external beam radiation therapy

    Schulz JB, Gibson C, Dubrowski P, et al. Shaping success: clinical implementation of a 3D-printed ele ctron cutout program in external beam radiation therapy. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1237037 . doi:10.3389/fonc.2023.1237037

    work page doi:10.3389/fonc.2023.1237037 2023

  37. [39]

    Field output correction factors using a scintillation detector

    Gingras L, Cervantes Y, Beaulieu F, et al. Field output correction factors using a scintillation detector. Med Phys. 2025;52(6):4844-4861. doi:10.1002/mp.17729

    work page doi:10.1002/mp.17729 2025