ArticleJournal of biomedical physics & engineering2026
Evaluation of Dose Distribution at the Level of Electronic Portal Imaging Device using Treatment Planning System.
Article in Journal of biomedical physics & engineering, 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.
- Effectiveness of EPID-based in-vivo dosimetry with EPIgraySaudi medical journal · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Treatment Planning Systems (TPS) are designed to calculate dose distributions within the CT imaging field of view. However, the Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) is positioned outside this area, making it challenging to use standard TPS for dose calculations at the EPID level. Objective: The objective of this study is to present an innovative approach to address the limitations of TPS in calculating dose distribution at the EPID level. Material and Methods: In this retrospective quantitative study, the CT image was extended to the EPID level and imported into the TPS. 42 treatments were planned, and doses were calculated. The TPS doses were then compared with the measured doses obtained using an Ion Chamber (IC). The study also investigated the impact of field size, phantom thickness, and air gap for energies of 6, 10, and 15 MV. Results: The average, minimum, and maximum dose differences were 1.91%, 0.02%, and 5.79% when changing the field size from 5×5 cm Conclusion: The validated proposed method in this study, as an innovative approach, effectively addresses the limitation of TPS in calculating dose distribution at the EPID level. This can be used as a reference for comparing the measured dose obtained by EPID in dosimetric verification.
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.