ArticleCureus2024
Automated Test for Monthly Quality Assurance of Optical Surface Imaging Dynamic Localization Accuracy.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) recently published the report of Task Group (TG) 302, which provides recommendations on acceptance, commissioning, and ongoing routine quality assurance (QA) for surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) systems. One of the recommended monthly QA tests is a dynamic localization accuracy test. This work aimed to develop an automated procedure for monthly SGRT dynamic localization QA. An anthropomorphic head phantom was rigidly attached to the 6-dof couch of a TrueBeam linac. TrueBeam Developer Mode was used to take an MV image of the phantom at the starting position, then automatically drive the couch through a series of translations and rotations, taking an MV image after each translation. The Identify SGRT system monitored the motion of the phantom surface from the starting position. Translations assessed on MV images were compared to translations reported in trajectory log files and Identify log files. Rotations were compared between trajectory log files and Identify log files. Three experiments were conducted. None of the translations or rotations from any experiment exceeded the tolerance values for stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy (SABR) recommended by AAPM TG-142. Maximum deviations from the expected translation values from MV imaging, trajectory log files, and Identify log files were -0.94mm, -0.11mm, and -0.78mm, respectively. Maximum deviations from the expected rotation values from trajectory log files and Identify log files were 0.01 and -0.2 degrees, respectively. The proposed method is a simple automated way to complete monthly dynamic localization QA of SGRT systems.
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.