↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the Machine Performance Check application for TrueBeam Linac

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of the Machine Performance Check application for TrueBeam Linac
Published in
Radiation Oncology, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0381-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandro Clivio, Eugenio Vanetti, Steven Rose, Giorgia Nicolini, Maria F Belosi, Luca Cozzi, Christof Baltes, Antonella Fogliata

Abstract

Machine Performance Check (MPC) is an application to verify geometry and beam performances of TrueBeam Linacs, through automated checks based on their kV-MV imaging systems. In this study, preliminary tests with MPC were analyzed using all photon beam energies of our TrueBeam, comparing whenever possible with external independent checks. Data acquisition comprises a series of 39 images (12 with kV and 27 with MV detector) acquired at predefined positions without and with the IsoCal phantom in the beam, and with particular MLC pattern settings. MPC performs geometric and dosimetric checks. The geometric checks intend to test the treatment isocenter size and its coincidence with imaging devices, the positioning accuracy of the imaging systems, the collimator, the gantry, the jaws, the MLC leaves and the couch position. The dosimetric checks: refer to a reference MV image and give the beam output, uniformity and center change relative to the reference. MPC data were acquired during 10 repetitions on different consecutive days. Alternative independent checks were performed. Geometric: routine mechanical tests, Winston-Lutz test for treatment isocenter radius. Dosimetric: the 2D array StarCheck (PTW) was used just after the MPC data acquisition. Results were analyzed for 6, 10, 15 MV flattened, and 6, 10 MV FFF beams. Geometric checks: treatment isocenter was between 0.31 ± 0.01 mm and 0.42 ± 0.02 mm with MPC, compared to 0.27 ± 0.01 mm averaged on all energies with the Winston-Lutz test. Coincidence of kV and MV imaging isocenters was within 0.36 ± 0.0 and 0.43 ± 0.06 mm, respectively (0.4 ± 0.1 mm with external tests). Positioning accuracy of MLC was within 0.5 mm; accuracy of jaws was 0.04 ± 0.02, 0.10 ± 0.05, -1.01 ± 0.03, 0.92 ± 0.04 mm for X1, X2, Y1, Y2 jaws, respectively, with MPC. Dosimetric tests: the output stability relative to the baseline was in average 0.15 ± 0.07% for MPC to compare with 0.3 ± 0.2% with the independent measurement. MPC proved to be a reliable, fast and easy to use method for checking the machine performances on both geometric and dosimetric aspects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 111 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 18 16%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Master 13 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 5%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 24 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 40 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 18%
Engineering 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 31 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 February 2017.
All research outputs
#2,771,349
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#69
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,388
of 265,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#4
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.