ArticleJournal of medical physics
Plan Complexity Metric Based Patient Specific Quality Assurance Outcome Prediction Across Two Machines.
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to develop a prediction model for patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) outcomes for the institution using established plan complexity metrics (PCMs) from volumetric modulated arc treatment (VMAT) plans delivered on two machines with different characteristics. Materials and Methods: One hundred VMAT plans were created using Eclipse Treatment Planning Systems in a Unique machine and analyzed for various PCMs such as modulation complexity score for VMAT (MCSv), leaf travel modulation complexity score, plan normalized monitor unit (PMU), modulation index for VMAT suggested by Li and Xing (MI Results: The validation results demonstrated the predictive potential of the models, with deviation in the Unique falling within 3% for GPRs 3%/3 mm and 2%/3 mm, and in the TrueBeam falling within 1% for GPRs 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 3%/1 mm, respectively. Conclusions: The PCM-based prediction tool developed has a high potential to predict PSQA results with < 3% error for the Unique Machine and with <1% error for the TrueBeam Machine. This tool directly computes GPRs, offering a simpler and more efficient evaluation method. The tool more effectively predicts spatial accuracy than dosimetric accuracy and demonstrates its sensitivity to machine-specific characteristics.
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.