ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2023
A comprehensive quality assurance program for four-dimensional computed tomography in radiotherapy.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A phantom study of internal target volume and mid-position accuracy in adaptive and conventional four-dimensional computed tomography across regular and irregular motion.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- A streamlined workflow for comprehensive 4DCT imaging QA with automated analysis of spatial integrity and image quality.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- From computed tomography innovation to routine clinical application in radiation oncology - A joint initiative of close collaboration.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Results of a multicenter 4D computed tomography quality assurance audit: Evaluating image accuracy and consistency.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive, reproducible and automatic 4DCT Quality Assurance (QA) workflow (QAMotion) that evaluates image accuracy across various regular and irregular breathing patterns. Volume and amplitude deviations, CT number accuracy, and spatial integrity were used as evaluation metrics. For repeatability tests, tolerances were respected with a mean CT number deviation < 10 HU, volume deviation < 2% and diameter and amplitude deviation < 2 mm except for irregular amplitude curves for which an amplitude deviation up to 6 mm was measured. QAMotion was able to flag image artefacts for our clinical 4DCT system.
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.