ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025
Quantification of uncertainties in reference and relative dose measurements, dose calculations, and patient setup in modern external beam radiotherapy.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2025. 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.
- Impact of CT calibration curves on radiotherapy planning using diagnostic CT scans and a planning CT supporting DirectDensity reconstruction.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uncertainties in the steps of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) affect patient outcomes. However, few studies have investigated major contributors to these uncertainties. This study investigated factors contributing to reducing uncertainty in delivering a dose to a target volume. The EBRT process was classified into four steps: reference dosimetry, relative dosimetry [percentage depth doses (PDDs) and off-center ratios (OCRs)], dose calculations (PDDs and OCRs in a virtual water phantom), and patient setup using an image-guided radiation therapy system. We evaluated the uncertainties for these steps in conventionally fractionated EBRT for intracranial disease using 4-, 6-, and 10-MV flattened photon beams generated from clinical linear accelerators following the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement and an uncertainty evaluation method with uncorrected deflection. The following were the major contributors to these uncertainties: beam quality conversion factors for reference dosimetry; charge measurements, chamber depth, source-to-surface distance, water evaporation, and field size for relative dosimetry; dose calculation accuracy for the dose calculations; image registration, radiation-imaging isocenter coincidence, variation in radiation isocenter due to gantry and couch rotation, and intrafractional motion for the patient setup. Among the four steps, the relative dosimetry and dose calculation (namely, both penumbral OCRs) steps involved an uncertainty of more than 5% with a coverage factor of 1. In the EBRT process evaluated herein, the uncertainties in the relative dosimetry and dose calculations must be reduced.
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.