ArticleJournal of radiation research2024
Dosimetric impact of calibration coefficients determined using linear accelerator photon and electron beams for ionization chamber in an on-site dosimetry audit.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to clarify the dosimetric impact of calibration beam quality for calibration coefficients of the absorbed dose to water for an ionization chamber in an on-site dosimetry audit. Institution-measured doses of 200 photon and 184 electron beams were compared with the measured dose using one year data before and after the calibration of the ionization chamber used. For photon and electron reference dosimetry, the agreements of the institution-measured dose against two measured doses in this audit were evaluated using the calibration coefficients determined using 60Co (${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\mathrm{Co}}$) and linear accelerator (linac) (${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$) beams. For electron reference dosimetry, the agreement of two institution-measured doses against the measured dose was evaluated using${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$. Institution-measured doses were evaluated using direct- and cross-calibration coefficients. For photon reference dosimetry, the mean differences and standard deviation (SD) of institution-measured dose against the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\mathrm{Co}}$ and ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$ were -0.1% ± 0.4% and -0.3% ± 0.4%, respectively. For electron reference dosimetry, the mean differences and SD of institution-measured dose using the direct-calibration coefficient against the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\mathrm{Co}}$ and ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$ were 1.3% ± 0.8% and 0.8% ± 0.8%, respectively. Further, the mean differences and SD of institution-measured dose using the cross-calibration coefficient against the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$ were -0.1% ± 0.6%. For photon beams, the dosimetric impact of introducing calibration coefficients determined using linac beams was small. For electron beams, it was larger, and the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$ was most consistent with the institution-measured dose, which was evaluated using a cross-calibration coefficient.
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.