ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Acceptance testing of a 0.35 T MR-Linac: procedures, QA baseline, and system limitations.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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.
- Acceptance testing of a 0.35 T MR-Linac: procedures, QA baseline, and system limitations.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study describes and evaluates the acceptance procedure for a ViewRay (VR) MRIdian 0.35T MR-Linac, emphasizing key challenges, limitations, and recommendations to enhance clinical performance and accuracy.
methodsA comprehensive acceptance test was conducted at a single institution, following the manufacturer's protocols and aligned with established acceptance guidelines. Specific tools and phantoms were used to assess three primary components: mechanical, dosimetric, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).
resultsOverall, the test outcomes satisfied the manufacturer's specifications. However, certain issues were identified: high couch attenuation at specific gantry angles (leading to their exclusion from treatment), variations in magnetic field homogeneity at different gantry angles, and discrepancies between TPS calculations and measurements for field output factors smaller than 0.83 cm × 0.83 cm.
conclusionThis work provides a detailed account of the acceptance testing procedure and establishes a QA baseline for 0.35T MR-Linac systems. In doing so, it also identifies key system limitations, such as couch attenuation, magnetic field inhomogeneity, and small-field output discrepancies, underscoring the need for careful gantry angle selection, field homogeneity optimization, and meticulous validation of very small fields.
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.