ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Results of a remote audit program of reference and non-reference dosimetry of photon beams using alanine detectors.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Remote beam output audits (BOAs) are important for verifying the calibration of the audited beam. However, BOAs (Level I audit) provide limited independent validation of the commissioned beam model in the treatment planning system (TPS). With Level II audits, the beam commissioning data is checked more thoroughly. This study presents the results of a remote audit program of reference and non-reference dosimetry, utilising alanine dosimetry. A particularity was to use the calculations of the TPS as reference values corrected by the daily output. The goal was to verify the beam commissioning data in the TPS, including the calibration. Materials and methods: The audit consisted of five irradiations with a 10 × 10 cm Results: The difference between the measured and predicted doses was within ±5 % for all beams except one. No clear trend was observed in the results for uniform and FFF beams. The uncertainty in the alanine readout was 1 % (k = 1). The results maintained their accuracy, while a slight improvement was observed in the small field test. Conclusions: All audit results were satisfactory. There is a slightly positive trend in the audit results over the years, suggesting that the accuracy of radiotherapy calculations is consistently maintained.
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.