ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
Error sensitivity of a log file analysis tool compared with a helical diode array dosimeter for VMAT delivery quality assurance.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complementary roles of GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo and ArcCHECK in TomoTherapy quality assurance.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Implementing log file-based patient-specific QA for VMAT plans: A comparative study of MobiusFX and measurement-based approaches.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Sensitivity and specificity of Monte Carlo based independent secondary dose computation for detecting modulation-related dose errors in intensity modulated radiotherapy.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2025Article
- A method for patient-specific DVH verification using a high-sampling-rate log file in an Elekta linac.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Prediction of portal dosimetry quality assurance results using log files-derived errors and machine learning techniques.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of 4-Hz log files and secondary Monte Carlo dose calculation as patient-specific quality assurance for VMAT prostate plans.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- A patient-specific QA comparison between 2D and 3D diode arrays for single-lesion SRS and SBRT treatments.Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT · 2021Article
- Optimizing Patient-specific Quality Assurance Workload with Neural Network Analysis of Log Files and Complexity Indices.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIntegrating log file analysis with LINACWatch® (LW) into clinical routine as part of the quality assurance (QA) process could be a time-saving strategy that does not compromise on quality. The purpose is to determine the error sensitivity of log file analysis using LINACWatch® compared with a measurement device (ArcCHECK®, AC) for VMAT delivery QA. MATERIALS AND
methodsMulti-leaf collimator (MLC) errors, collimator angle errors, MLC shift errors and dose errors were inserted to analyze error detection sensitivity. A total of 36 plans were manipulated with different magnitudes of errors. The gamma index protocols for AC were 3%/3 mm/Global and 2%/2 mm/Global, as well as 2%/2 mm/Global, and 1.5%/1.5 mm/Global for LW. Additionally, deviations of the collimator and monitor units between TPS and log file were calculated as RMS values. A 0.125 cm
resultsThe sensitivity for AC was 20.4% and 49.6% vs 63.0% and 86.5% for LW, depending on the analysis protocol. For MLC opening and closing errors, the detection rate was 19.0% and 47.7% for AC vs 50.5% and 75.5% for LW. For MLC shift errors, it was 29.6% and 66.7% for AC vs 66.7% and 83.3% for LW. AC could detect 25.0% and 44.4% of all collimator errors. Log file analysis detected all collimator errors using 1° detection level. 13.2% and 42.4% of all dose errors were detected by AC vs 59.0% and 92.4% for LW using gamma analysis. Using RMS value, all dose errors were detected by LW (1% detection level).
conclusionThe results of this study clearly show that log file analysis is an excellent complement to phantom-based delivery QA of VMAT plans. We recommend a 1.5%/1.5 mm/Global criteria for log file-based gamma calculations. Log file analysis was implemented successfully in our clinical routine for VMAT delivery QA.
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.