The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions
Abstract
The commissioning of a three-dimensional treatment planning system requires comparisons of measured and calculated dose distributions. Techniques have been developed to facilitate quantitative comparisons, including superimposed isodoses, dose-difference, and distance-to-agreement (DTA) distributions. The criterion for acceptable calculation performance is generally defined as a tolerance of the dose and DTA in regions of low and high dose gradients, respectively. The dose difference and DTA distributions complement each other in their useful regions. A composite distribution has recently been developed that presents the dose difference in regions that fail both dose-difference and DTA comparison criteria. Although the composite distribution identifies locations where the calculation fails the preselected criteria, no numerical quality measure is provided for display or analysis. A technique is developed to unify dose distribution comparisons using the acceptance criteria. The measure of acceptability is the multidimensional distance between the measurement and calculation points in both the dose and the physical distance, scaled as a fraction of the acceptance criteria. In a space composed of dose and spatial coordinates, the acceptance criteria form an ellipsoid surface, the major axis scales of which are determined by individual acceptance criteria and the center of which is located at the measurement point in question. When the calculated dose distribution surface passes through the ellipsoid, the calculation passes the acceptance test for the measurement point. The minimum radial distance between the measurement point and the calculation points (expressed as a surface in the dose-distance space) is termed the gamma index. Regions where gamma > 1 correspond to locations where the calculation does not meet the acceptance criteria. The determination of gamma throughout the measured dose distribution provides a presentation that quantitatively indicates the calculation accuracy. Examples of a 6 MV beam penumbra are used to illustrate the gamma index.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Fraass, B., Doppke, K., Hunt, M., Kutcher, G., Starkschall, G., Stern, R., & Van Dyke, J. (1998) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.598373 · Cited by 911
SlicerRT: Radiation therapy research toolkit for 3D Slicer
Pinter, C., Lasso, A., Wang, A., Jaffray, D., & Fichtinger, G. (2012) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.4754659 · Cited by 272
Artificial intelligence in radiotherapy
Li, G., Wu, X., & Ma, X. (2022) · Seminars in Cancer Biology · doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2022.08.005 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Low, D. A., Harms, W. B., Mutic, S., & Purdy, J. A.
- Venue
- Medical Physics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-05
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 656-661
- ISSN
- 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1967121735
- Cited by
- 2,880
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1118/1.598248
- The paper
- Low, D. A., Harms, W. B., Mutic, S., & Purdy, J. A. (1998). A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598248
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.