ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Monte Carlo evaluation of uncertainties in photon and electron TG-51 absorbed dose calibration.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Monte Carlo evaluation of uncertainties in photon and electron TG-51 absorbed dose calibration.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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe accuracy of dose delivery to all patients treated with medical linacs depends on the accuracy of beam calibration. Dose delivery cannot be any more accurate than this. Given the importance of this, it seems worthwhile taking another look at the expected uncertainty in TG-51 photon dose calibration and a first look at electron calibration. This work builds on the 2014 addendum to TG-51 for photons and adds to it by also considering electrons. In that publication, estimates were made of the uncertainty in the dose calibration. In this paper, we take a deeper look at this important issue.
methodsThe methodology used here is more rigorous than previous determinations as it is based on Monte Carlo simulation of uncertainties. It is assumed that mechanical QA has been performed following TG-142 prior to beam calibration and that there are no uncertainties that exceed the tolerances specified by TG-142. RESULTS/
conclusionsDespite the different methodology and assumptions, the estimated uncertainty in photon beam calibration is close to that in the addendum. The careful user should be able to easily reach a 95% confidence interval (CI) of ± 2.3% for photon beam calibration with standard instrumentation. For electron beams calibrated with a Farmer chamber, the estimated uncertainties are slightly larger, and the 95% CI is ±2.6% for 6 MeV and slightly smaller than this for 18 MeV. There is no clear energy dependence in these results. It is unlikely that the user will be able to improve on these uncertainties as the dominant factor in the uncertainty resides in the ion chamber dose calibration factor
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.