ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Evaluation of the TrueBeam machine-performance-check (MPC): Collimator device check (CDC).
Article in Journal of applied clinical 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.
- Evaluation of the small-field output factor in eclipse modeling methods using representative beam and measured data with averaged ionization chamber and diode detector measurements.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the TrueBeam machine-performance-check (MPC): Collimator device check (CDC).Journal of applied clinical 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the Varian machine performance check (MPC) collimator devices check (CDC) for routine MLC and jaw testing as part of an AAPM compliant linac QA program.
methodsCDC MLC positioning, MLC backlash, jaw positioning, and jaw parallelism were each assessed for repeatability and concordance with conventional QA. MLC and jaw positioning were also assessed for sensitivity. Measurement time and repeatability of CDC were assessed by timing and recording five successive measurements on a single linac. Concordance was assessed monthly over 5 months on four linacs, conducted during the same session as conventional QA. MLC positioning was compared to an advanced picket fence test, while jaw positioning and parallelism were compared to department in-house EPID based methods. MLC backlash was compared to the Varian built-in method. Sensitivity was assessed via deliberately introduced errors except for MLC backlash, which was assessed via correlation between methods across leaf banks.
resultsCDC requires 4:09 (min:s) ± 1.8 s (2 SD) to perform. Repeatability was measured to be: 0.02 mm for both MLC positioning and backlash, 0.15 mm for jaw positioning and 0.009° for jaw parallelism (2 SD). Concordance was observed for mean MLC positioning to within 0.32 , 0.08 mm for MLC backlash, 0.6 mm for jaw positioning and 0.06° for jaw parallelism. MLC and jaw positioning sensitivity were observed with maximum mean difference between methods of 0.18 and 0.71 mm, respectively. MLC backlash correlation coefficient between methods across leaf banks was observed to 0.84 and 0.9 for banks A and B, respectively.
conclusionMPC CDC has been demonstrated to provide acceptably equivalent MLC and jaw positioning assessment to standard methods and could conceivably be used in a linac QA program for these purposes.
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.