ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Filament deposition modeling quality assurance testing for the medical physicist.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFilament deposition modeling (FDM) can be a practical method for producing quality control (QC) imaging resources for the clinic. However, frequent printing may degrade print quality over time. PURPOSE: To develop a process to ensure prints for the diagnostic physicist are accurate and reproducible.
methodsFour FDM systems were evaluated by printing a custom, novel QC model on each printer 12 times over a period of 12 months. Several tests were performed, including print resolvability (lp/cm), XYZ dimension accuracy (mm), density (g/cm3), line width (mm), XY position accuracy (mm), clearance fits (mm), and thickness uniformity (mm). Polylactic acid (PLA) samples were printed, measured, and imaged with a dual energy CT scanner. Linear regression models were then created to monitor changes in QC density measurements as a function of x-ray and material property characteristics (i.e., Hounsfield units and electron density). Between monthly prints, heat uniformity across the build plate was also tested for each printer using a NIST-certified infrared thermometer and 3D printed grids. All physical measurements were obtained using a calibrated digital caliper and milligram scale.
resultsMean percent error (MPE) for all tests was calculated from ground truth (CAD dimensions and filament density) and baseline values (first month of QC measurements). Among printers investigated, MPE was ± 5% of ground truth for all tests except density and thickness uniformity. Baseline MPE was also observed within ± 5% except for resolvability and clearance fit tests among printers. Subtle trend increases were presented for higher density QC prints based on DECT linear regression models. Reduced chi-squared values indicate uniform and reproducible heat bed temperature measurements.
conclusionsThis work offers an innovative approach toward evaluating and monitoring FDM system performance. Future work should track performance over a longer time period and across a wider variety of printers.
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.