ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Electron streaming dose measurements and calculations on a 1.5 T MR-Linac.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- ACPSEM guideline: commissioning and quality assurance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Linear Accelerators.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- A Review of the Australian MRI Linac Program: From Pie in the Sky to Research Milestone.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Playing Hard with Si: Challenges and Opportunities for New Materials in Radiation Therapy Dosimetry.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025Review
- Feasibility of segmental total body irradiation (SegTBI) using a 1.5T MR-linac.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Article
- Electron streaming dose measurements and calculations on a 1.5 T 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the accuracy of different dosimeters and the treatment planning system (TPS) for assessing the skin dose due to the electron streaming effect (ESE) on a 1.5 T magnetic resonance (MR)-linac.
methodSkin dose due to the ESE on an MR-linac (Unity, Elekta) was investigated using a solid water phantom rotated 45° in the x-y plane (IEC61217) and centered at the isocenter. The phantom was irradiated with 1 × 1, 3 × 3, 5 × 5, 10 × 10, and 22 × 22 cm
resultsOSLD, film, the 0.1 cm, 0.2%, and 0.2 cm, 3.0% TPS ESE doses, underestimated skin doses measured by the MOSkin™ by as much as -75.3%, -7.0%, -24.7%, and -41.9%, respectively. Film results were most similar to MOSkin™ skin dose measurements.
conclusionsThese results show that electron streams can deposit significant doses outside the primary field and that dosimeter choice and TPS calculation settings greatly influence the reported readings. Due to the steep dose gradient of the ESE, EBT3 film remains the choice for accurate skin dose assessment in this challenging environment.
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.