ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2026
Design and implementation of an automated quality assurance tool for Hounsfield unit-to-relative electron density calibration in cone beam computed tomography imaging.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate calibration of Hounsfield Units (HU) to relative electron density (RED) is critical for reliable absorbed dose calculation in radiotherapy, particularly for cone-beam CT (CBCT)-based adaptive workflows. We developed and evaluated a fully automated HU-RED calibration and quality assurance (QA) workflow for Elekta CBCT systems, integrating PyLinac with QATrack + to enable reproducible, user-independent analysis. Using the CIRS 062 M phantom, protocol-specific HU-RED calibration curves were generated for head, thorax, abdomen and pelvis CBCT acquisitions. Systematic protocol-dependent HU offsets were observed relative to fan-beam CT, with air-equivalent inserts shifting from approximately - 1000 HU on CT to + 500-600 HU for body CBCT protocols and up to + 1000 HU for head CBCT acquisitions. Water-equivalent inserts exhibited offsets of + 580-720 HU, while dense bone showed increases of + 200-500 HU depending on protocol. Despite these offsets, short-term reproducibility was high, with standard deviations ≤ 3 HU for water, ≤ 5 HU for bone and ≤ 12 HU for air across repeated scans. Over six months of monitoring, no significant HU drift was observed, demonstrating the ability of the automated workflow to reproducibly measure and track HU constancy over time. Automated tolerance checking using ± 30 HU (water/soft tissue) and ± 50 HU (lung/bone) thresholds showed 100% compliance across all measurements. The complete analysis and QA reporting required less than one minute per scan. This automated approach provides quantitative, protocol-specific HU-RED calibration and stable long-term monitoring, supporting routine CBCT QA and adaptive radiotherapy in accordance with international guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42258105What 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.