ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019
Tolerance levels of mass density for CT number calibration in photon radiation therapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Latent density discrepancies in commercial lung-equivalent inserts and their clinical dosimetric impact.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Reduction of CT number location dependency using photon-counting detector CT and virtual monoenergetic imaging.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Development of a CT number calibration audit phantom in photon radiation therapy: A pilot study.Medical physics · 2020Article
- Investigation of the Effect of Calibration Curves Obtained from Different Computed Tomography Devices on the Dose Distribution of Tomotherapy Plans.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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT) data are required to calculate the dose distribution in a patient's body. Generally, there are two CT number calibration methods for commercial radiotherapy treatment planning system (RTPS), namely CT number-relative electron density calibration (CT-RED calibration) and CT number-mass density calibration (CT-MD calibration). In a previous study, the tolerance levels of CT-RED calibration were established for each tissue type. The tolerance levels were established when the relative dose error to local dose reached 2%. However, the tolerance levels of CT-MD calibration are not established yet. We established the tolerance levels of CT-MD calibration based on the tolerance levels of CT-RED calibration. In order to convert mass density (MD) to relative electron density (RED), the conversion factors were determined with adult reference computational phantom data available in the International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 110 (ICRP-110). In order to validate the practicability of the conversion factor, the relative dose error and the dose linearity were validated with multiple RTPSes and dose calculation algorithms for two groups, namely, CT-RED calibration and CT-MD calibration. The tolerance levels of CT-MD calibration were determined from the tolerance levels of CT-RED calibration with conversion factors. The converted RED from MD was compared with actual RED calculated from ICRP-110. The conversion error was within ±0.01 for most standard organs. It was assumed that the conversion error was sufficiently small. The relative dose error difference for two groups was less than 0.3% for each tissue type. Therefore, the tolerance levels for CT-MD calibration were determined from the tolerance levels of CT-RED calibration with the conversion factors. The MD tolerance levels for lung, adipose/muscle, and cartilage/spongy-bone corresponded to ±0.044, ±0.022, and ±0.045 g/cm
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.