ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Sensitivity and concordance study of an open source EPID-based linear accelerator test suite.
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. 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) enhance linear accelerator (linac) quality assurance (QA) efficiency but are not universally used beyond patient-specific IMRT QA. A multi-institutional Consortium seeks to standardize linac QA utilizing an EPID-based test suite. PURPOSE: This study evaluates the sensitivity of a test suite to intentional linac and plan errors and the concordance with linac fluctuations over time.
methodsBaseline and error-introduced tests were performed on a Varian TrueBeam and Clinac. Evaluated parameters included enhanced dynamic wedge factors (EDW) (6MV), central axis dose (6MV, 6MV FFF, 16MV), focal spot alignment and beam symmetry (6MV, 16MV), dose rate-gantry speed and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf speed (6MV). Errors included varying EDW angles (10°-60°), output changes, beam steering for focal spot and symmetry inaccuracies, and meterset adjustments of control points for dose rate-gantry speed and MLC leaf speed tests. Measurements were performed with an EPID, analyzed via test suite software, and compared to an ion chamber (IC) or array. Concordance analysis was performed on a single linac over 5 months to assess the test suite's ability to quantify deviations during routine operations. Measurement reproducibility was assessed.
resultsResults were reported as differences between EPID and an IC or array. For each EDW, wedge factor differences were <0.5% (TrueBeam) and <1.5% (Clinac). Central axis dose variations stayed within ±0.8%. For focal spot, EPID underestimated the radial direction and overestimated the transverse direction. Symmetry measurements showed strong linearity (r > 0.99), though EPID measurements underestimated changes in symmetry relative to baseline. Maximum differences for dose rate-gantry speed and MLC leaf speed were <0.4%. In the concordance study, output differences averaged 0.3% ± 0.3% (6MV), 0.5% ± 0.3% (6MV FFF), and 0.3% ± 0.2% (16MV). Systematic differences in symmetry were observed between EPID and a 2D-array with standard deviations <0.2%.
conclusionsComparisons with traditional detectors showed the EPID test suite can detect errors and supports commissioning and clinical integration.
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.