ArticleScientific reports2026
A modified broad beam model for uniformly scanned carbon ion therapy accounting for field inhomogeneities.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose was to perform beam modeling and plan verification for uniform scanned (US) carbon ion therapy delivered by Heavy Ion Medical Machine (HIMM). As the field inhomogeneity is larger than the commonly accepted 3% gamma pass rate criteria, a simple flat broad beam model is no longer accurate. A modified broad beam model accounting for field inhomogeneity was proposed and validated. The commissioning process for automatic beam modeling was described. Characteristic lateral dose distributions were collected at different depths for each field combination. The field inhomogeneities were modeled as two-dimensional interpolations of the lateral dose data. Dose calculation was based on ray-tracing combined with an asymmetric double-sigmoid function describing the dose at field edge. Two types of plan verifications on three US nozzles were carried out: 1) without range compensators 2) with range compensators. The distance-to-agreement at distal fall-off was within 1 mm. The absolute dose calibration was within 1.9% and the mean value was 0.6 (±0.5%). The verification plans satisfied 95% pass rate based on 3mm/3% gamma analysis for all three nozzles. Comparison with literature suggested a clinical factor of 1.33. The modified broad beam model satisfied the gamma analysis requirement and could be used for commissioning carbon US beams.
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.