ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Interpretation of intrafraction motion review data and method for verification.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. 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.
- Markerless motion tracking with simultaneous MV and kV imaging in spine SBRT treatment-a feasibility study.Physics in medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Interpretation of intrafraction motion review data and method for verification.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current clinical interface for Varian's intrafraction motion review (IMR) is limited, providing only qualitative data for review at the treatment console. This study provides a method of extracting and interpreting data from combined log files for quantitative evaluation. Combined log files acquired during patient treatment and a parsing code was developed to scan the combined log file looking for unique identifiers pertaining to the data of interest. We were able to extract clinically relevant parameters from the log files including date and time, gantry angle, expected marker position, found marker position, pixel size, and detection result. This study details how to compare IMR data to Calypso investigating dual-surrogates for intrafraction monitoring during treatment for other researchers to build on these methods. Understanding data recorded during treatment within the combined log files can be helpful in quality improvement of patient care by retrospectively reviewing intrafraction motion.
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.