ArticleMedical physics2026
Quantifying uncertainty in calibration and clinical application of EBT-4 Gafchromic film dosimetry.
Article in Medical physics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGAFchromic films (GAFs) are essential tools in radiotherapy dosimetry, but uncertainties in calibration methods limit their accuracy and hinder consistency across clinical practice. PURPOSE: This study aimed to perform a comparative analysis of different calibration functions for GAFchromic EBT4 films in single- and double-channel dosimetry to quantify the uncertainty associated with their calibration and clinical use.
methodsGAFchromic EBT4 films were irradiated to doses between 0.2 and 10 Gy using a 6 MV photon beam. A custom irradiation setup in a water-equivalent phantom ensured reference conditions, with dose verified by an ionization chamber. Films were scanned on an Epson Expression 13000XL flatbed scanner at 72 dpi, with pre- and postirradiation scans taken at optimized time points (48 h postirradiation to ensure polymer growth stabilization). A custom-developed Python script was used for comprehensive film data processing, including lateral response artifact (LRA) correction. Eight calibration functions, including invertible and non-invertible forms from existing literature, were evaluated and compared. A comparison of the performance of the proposed approach with an established commercial software was performed.
resultsAmong the tested functions, two of them consistently emerged as the most accurate for EBT4 film calibration, yielding also the lowest relative errors. Specifically, the 2.5th order polynomial function showed an average percentage residual error of 2.7% (ranging from 1.6-4.4%), while the same function on corrected net optical density (netOD
conclusionsWe identified an optimal calibration function that incorporates a linear term and a 2.5th-order component to accurately model the relationship between radiation dose and the netOD
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.