ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019
Technical note: A modified gamma evaluation method for dose distribution comparisons.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of iso-dose levels on pre-treatment quality assurance in volumetric modulated arc therapy.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- A structure-based gamma evaluation method for identifying clinically relevant dose differences in organs at risk.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn this work we have developed a novel method of dose distribution comparison, the inverse gamma (IG) evaluation, by modifying the commonly used gamma evaluation method.
methodsThe IG evaluation calculates the gamma criteria (dose difference criterion, ΔD, or distance-to-agreement criterion, Δd) that are needed to achieve a predefined pass rate or gamma agreement index (GAI). In-house code for evaluating IG with a fixed ΔD of 3% was developed using Python (v3.5.2) and investigated using treatment plans and measurement data from 25 retrospective patient specific quality assurance tests (53 individual arcs).
resultsIt was found that when the desired GAI was set to 95%, approximately three quarters of the arcs tested were able to achieve Δd within 1 mm (mean Δd: 0.7 ± 0.5 mm). The mean Δd required in order for all points to pass the gamma evaluation (i.e., GAI = 100%) was 4.5 ± 3.1 mm. The possibility of evaluating IG by fixing the Δd or ΔD/Δd, instead of fixing the ΔD at 3%, was also investigated.
conclusionThe IG method and its indices have the potential to be implemented clinically to quantify the minimum dose and distance criteria based on a specified GAI. This method provides additional information to augment standard gamma evaluation results during patient specific quality assurance testing of individual treatment plans. The IG method also has the potential to be used in retrospective audits to determine an appropriate set of local gamma criteria and action levels based on a cohort of patient specific quality assurance plans.
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.