ArticleJournal of medical physics
Comparative Evaluation of Curve-fitting Techniques for Electronic Portal Imaging Device-based Multileaf Collimator Picket Fence Analysis.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to identify the most suitable curve-fitting method for picket fence analysis by comparing commonly used mathematical fitting approaches with film-based reference measurements. Materials and Methods: A picket fence test was planned on an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator equipped with an MLCi2 multileaf collimator (40 leaf pairs) using 6-mm slit widths and five pickets with a nominal field geometry of 0.6 cm × 24 cm, covering 24 leaf pairs per picket. For analysis, only the central 20 opposing leaf pairs in each picket were evaluated, yielding a total of 100 analyzed peaks. The identical picket fence plan was delivered to both the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and Gafchromic film. EPID images were exported as TIFF files and analyzed using PTW MEPHYSTO software to obtain peak coordinates, followed by manual determination of peak center position, maximum amplitude, and full width at half maximum (FWHM). Results: Mean FWHM values were 6.90 mm (Gaussian), 5.69 mm (Lorentzian), 6.29 mm (pseudo-Voigt), 6.92 mm (manual), and 6.56 mm (film). Gaussian fitting and manual measurements demonstrated systematic overestimation of FWHM relative to film, while Lorentzian fitting showed the largest deviation and highest root mean square error (RMSE). Conclusion: Based on percentage error, RMSE, and Bonferroni-corrected nonparametric statistical analysis, pseudo-Voigt curve fitting provides the most accurate and consistent estimation of slit width in EPID-based picket fence analysis.
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.