ArticleMedical physics2025
Evaluation of the two-voltage method for parallel-plate ionization chambers irradiated with pulsed beams.
Article in Medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measurement of Percentage Depth-Dose Distributions in Clinical Dosimetry: Conventional Techniques and Emerging Sensor Technologies.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the two-voltage method for parallel-plate ionization chambers irradiated with pulsed beams.Medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAir-vented ionization chambers exposed to clinical radiation beams may suffer from recombination during the drift of the charge carriers towards the electrodes. Thus, dosimetry protocols recommend the use of a correction factor, usually denominated saturation factor ( PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of a more realistic approach to the saturation problem that accounts for the free electron fraction.
methodsThe saturation factor of four ionization chambers (two Advanced Markus and two PPC05) was experimentally determined in the ultra-high dose per pulse reference beam of the German National Metrology Institute (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB]) for voltages ranging from 50 to 400 V and pulse durations between 0.5 and 2.9
resultsThe saturation factors calculated using the different Boag analytical models do not agree neither with each other nor with the numerical simulation even at the lowest dose per pulse of the investigated range (
conclusionsThe numerical simulation shows a better agreement with the experimental data than the current analytical theories in terms of CCE. The classical TVM, systematically overestimates the saturation factor, with differences increasing with dose per pulse but also present at low dose per pulse. These results may have implications for the dosimetry with ionization chambers in therapy modalities that use a dose per pulse higher than conventional radiotherapy such as intraoperative radiotherapy but also in conventional dose per pulse for ionization chambers that suffer from significant charge recombination.
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.