ArticleJournal of radiation research2026
Cherenkov emission-based quality assurance for linear accelerators.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2026. 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.
- Quantitative Cherenkov-excited fluorescence emission dosimetry for HDR Co-60 brachytherapy: Calibration and planar validation against TPS.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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When electrons exceed the speed of light in a medium, they emit low-intensity visible light, known as Cherenkov emission (CE). This study proposes a novel CE-based quality assurance (QA) test for linear accelerators. A CE-based QA (C-QA) phantom incorporating a mock tumor and four CE observation plates (top, bottom, left, and right) was developed. After tumor-based alignment using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), lateral and posterior fields were used for irradiation. A C-Dose camera was employed to measure the treatment position, gantry angle, photon energy (TPR20,10), and CE counts for both fields. The treatment position and TPR20,10 were determined by analyzing the changes in the CE profile, while the gantry angle was calculated based on the tilt between the entry and exit field positions. Confidence limits were evaluated over a three-month period, during which long-term testing demonstrated favorable results. The standard deviations (σ) for CBCT-based positional accuracy and gantry angle were within ±1 mm in all three directions and within 1°, respectively. The mean ± σ for TPR20,10 was 0.631 ± 0.004, closely matching the 0.629 measured using an ionization chamber. Detected CE counts exhibited a higher variation (σ = 2.7%). CE-based QA appears to be an effective and reliable method for radiotherapy. Treatment position could be directly measured without conventional dosimetric devices, while CE imaging simultaneously evaluated positional accuracy, gantry angle, and photon energy (TPR20,10). However, accurate assessment of linear accelerator dose output remains a challenge, and the quantification of CE counts requires further investigation.
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.