ArticleMedical physics2020
Reference dataset of users' photon beam modeling parameters for the Eclipse, Pinnacle, and RayStation treatment planning systems.
Article in Medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- AAPM MEDICAL PHYSICS PRACTICE GUIDELINE 5.b: Commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations-Megavoltage photon and electron beams.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Guideline
- Accelerated and standardized commissioning of a robotic RadioSurgery system using a hybrid golden beam data model.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Rapid commissioning of Brainlab Elements for SRS: end-to-end evaluation of Monte Carlo and pencil beam algorithm across homogeneous and heterogeneous phantom environments.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Optimizing dosimetric leaf gap parameters for radiation therapy: A comparative study using three diode-array verification tools and an ionization chamber.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- A proof of concept for improving comparability of dosimetry audits through centralised planning.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Developing reference plans for evaluating global clinical trials credentialing and PSQA systems.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- A novel protocol for parametrization of a beam model for small stereotactic beams.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Dosimetric sensitivity of an enhanced leaf model (ELM) for individual versus averaged machines.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- A radiotherapy community data-driven approach to determine which complexity metrics best predict the impact of atypical TPS beam modeling on clinical dose calculation accuracy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Improving the modelling of a multi-leaf collimator with tilted leaf sides used in radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Deep learning-based detection and classification of multi-leaf collimator modeling errors in volumetric modulated radiation therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Accuracy and reliability of a commercial treatment planning system in nontarget regions in modern prostate radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Stability of dosiomic features against variations in dose calculation: An analysis based on a cohort of prostate external beam radiotherapy patients.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Challenges in modeling the Agility multileaf collimator in treatment planning systems and current needs for improvement.Medical physics · 2022Article
- Limits for the therapeutic application of the analytical anisotropic algorithm in the context of ablative lung radiotherapy near the minima of lung density and tumor size.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Golden beam data provided by linear accelerator manufacturers should be used in the commissioning of treatment planning systems.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2022Article
- Photon beam modeling variations predict errors in IMRT dosimetry audits.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2022Article
- Development and Evaluation of Jaw Position Detection Method in Jaw-tracking Delivery Using an Electronic Portal Imaging Device Cine Mode.Juntendo Iji zasshi = Juntendo medical journal · 2022Article
- Interinstitutional beam model portability study in a mixed vendor environment.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Commissioning and clinical implementation of an Autoencoder based Classification-Regression model for VMAT patient-specific QA in a multi-institution scenario.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this work was to provide a novel description of how the radiotherapy community configures treatment planning system (TPS) radiation beam models for clinically used treatment machines. Here we describe the results of a survey of self-reported TPS beam modeling parameter values across different C-arm linear accelerators, beam energies, and multileaf collimator (MLC) configurations. ACQUISITION AND VALIDATION
methodsBeam modeling data were acquired via electronic survey implemented through the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston Quality Assurance Center's online facility questionnaire. The survey was open to participation from January 2018 through January 2019 for all institutions monitored by IROC. After quality control, 2818 beam models were collected from 642 institutions. This survey, designed for Eclipse, Pinnacle, and RayStation, instructed physicists to report parameter values used to model the radiation source and MLC for each treatment machine and beam energy used clinically for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Parameters collected included the effective source/spot size, MLC transmission, dosimetric leaf gap, tongue and groove effect, and other nondosimetric parameters specific to each TPS. To facilitate survey participation, instructions were provided on how to identify requested beam modeling parameters within each TPS environment. DATA FORMAT AND USAGE NOTES: Numeric values of the beam modeling parameters are compiled and tabulated according to TPS and calculation algorithm, linear accelerator model class, beam energy, and MLC configuration. Values are also presented as distributions, ranging from the 2.5th to the 97.5th percentile. POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS: These data provide an independent guide describing how the radiotherapy community mathematically represents its clinical radiation beams. These distributions may be used by the community for comparison during the commissioning or verification of their TPS beam models. Ultimately, we hope that the current work will allow institutions to spot potentially suspicious parameter values and help ensure more accurate radiotherapy delivery.
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.