ArticleJournal of medical signals and sensors2024
Evaluation of Dose Calculation Algorithms Accuracy for ISOgray Treatment Planning System in Motorized Wedged Treatment Fields.
Article in Journal of medical signals and sensors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dose rate correction of a diode array for universal wedge field dosimetric verification.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Assessment of Dose Calculation Accuracy of Monaco Treatment Planning System for Effective Wedge Angle in Internal Wedged Fields using Two Different Analytical Methods.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Dose Calculation Algorithms Accuracy for ISOgray Treatment Planning System in Motorized Wedged Treatment Fields.Journal of medical signals and sensors · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Different dose calculation methods vary in accuracy and speed. While most methods sacrifice precision for efficiency Monte Carlo (MC) simulation offers high accuracy but slower calculation. ISOgray treatment planning system (TPS) uses Clarkson, collapsed cone convolution (CCC), and fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithms for dose distribution. This study's primary goal is to evaluate the dose calculation accuracy for ISOgray TPS algorithms in the presence of a wedge. Methods: This study evaluates the dose calculation algorithms using the ISOgray TPS in the context of radiation therapy. The authors compare ISOgray TPS algorithms on an Elekta Compact LINAC through MC simulations. The study compares MC simulations for open and wedge fields with ISOgray algorithms by using gamma index analysis for validation. Results: The percentage depth dose results for all open and wedge fields showed a more than 98% pass rate for points. However, there were differences in the dose profile gamma index results. Open fields passed the gamma index analysis in the in-plane direction, but not all points passed in the cross-plane direction. Wedge fields passed in the cross-plane direction, but not all in the in-plane direction, except for the Clarkson algorithms. Conclusion: In all investigated algorithms, error increases in the penumbra areas, outside the field, and at cross-plane of open fields and in-plane direction of wedged fields. By increasing the wedge angle, the discrepancy between the TPS algorithms and MC simulations becomes more pronounced. This discrepancy is attributed to the increased presence of scattered photons and the variation in the delivered dose within the wedge field, consequently impacts the beam quality. While the CCC and FFT algorithms had better accuracy, the Clarkson algorithm, particularly at larger effective wedge angles, exhibited greater effectiveness than the two mentioned algorithms.
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.