ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2023
An integrated and fast imaging quality assurance phantom for a 0.35 T magnetic resonance imaging linear accelerator.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2023. 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.
- Evaluation of QUASAR Insight Phantom for daily imaging QA of MRgRT linacs.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Receive coil quality assurance procedure and automated analysis for ViewRay MRIdian MR-Linac.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
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
Purpose: Periodic imaging quality assurance (QA) of magnetic resonance imaging linear accelerator (MRL) is critical. The feasibility of a new MRL imaging phantom used for QA in the low field was evaluated with automated image analysis of various parameters for accuracy and reproducibility. Methods and materials: The new MRL imaging phantom was scanned across every 30 degrees of the gantry, having the on/off state of the linac in a low-field MRL system using three magnetic resonance imaging sequences: true fast imaging with steady-state precession (TrueFISP), T1 weighted (T1W), and T2 weighted (T2W). The DICOM files were used to calculate the imaging parameters: geometric distortion, uniformity, resolution, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and laser alignment. The point spread function (PSF) and edge spread function (ESF) were also calculated for resolution analysis. Results: The phantom data showed a small standard deviation - and high consistency for each imaging parameter. The highest variability in data was observed with the true fast imaging sequence at the calibration angle, which was expected because of low resolution and short scan time (25 sec). The mean magnitude of the largest distortion measured within 200 mm diameter with TrueFISP was 0.31 ± 0.05 mm. The PSF, ESF, signal uniformity, and SNR measurements remained consistent. Laser alignment traditional offsets and angular deviation remained consistent. Conclusions: The new MRL imaging phantom is reliable, reproducible, time effective, and easy to use for a 0.35 T MRL system. The results promise a more streamlined, time-saving, and error-free QA process for low-field MRL adapted in our clinical setting.
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.