ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2018
Assessment of the modulation degrees of intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using machine learning to predict gamma passing rate in volumetric-modulated arc therapy treatment plans.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Trial
- Definition of a framework for volumetric modulated arc therapy plan quality assessment with integration of dose-, complexity-, and robustness metrics.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Challenges and opportunities to integrate artificial intelligence in radiation oncology: a narrative review.Ewha medical journal · 2024Review
- Complexity metrics for IMRT and VMAT plans: a review of current literature and applications.The British journal of radiology · 2019Review
- Modeling of Gamma Index for Prediction of Pretreatment Quality Assurance in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy of the Liver.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the modulation indices (MIs) for predicting the plan delivery accuracies of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans.
methodsA total of 100 dynamic IMRT plans that used TrueBeam STx and 102 dynamic IMRT plans that used Trilogy were selected. For each plan, various MIs were calculated, which included the modulation complexity score (MCS), plan-averaged beam area (PA), plan-averaged beam irregularity (PI), plan-averaged beam modulation (PM), MI quantifying multi-leaf collimator (MLC) speeds (MI
resultsPI showed moderately strong correlations with gamma passing rates in MapCHECK2 measurements of both TrueBeam STx and Trilogy (r
conclusionsThe PI showed moderately strong correlations with every plan delivery accuracy measure and therefore is a useful predictor of IMRT delivery accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.