↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

QA for helical tomotherapy: Report of the AAPM Task Group 148a)

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

7 patents


192 Dimensions

Readers on

273 Mendeley
QA for helical tomotherapy: Report of the AAPM Task Group 148a)
Published in
Medical Physics, August 2010
DOI 10.1118/1.3462971
Pubmed ID

Katja M. Langen, Niko Papanikolaou, John Balog, Richard Crilly, David Followill, S. Murty Goddu, Walter Grant, Gustavo Olivera, Chester R. Ramsey, Chengyu Shi


Helical tomotherapy is a relatively new modality with integrated treatment planning and delivery hardware for radiation therapy treatments. In view of the uniqueness of the hardware design of the helical tomotherapy unit and its implications in routine quality assurance, the Therapy Physics Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine commissioned Task Group 148 to review this modality and make recommendations for quality assurance related methodologies. The specific objectives of this Task Group are: (a) To discuss quality assurance techniques, frequencies, and tolerances and (b) discuss dosimetric verification techniques applicable to this unit. This report summarizes the findings of the Task Group and aims to provide the practicing clinical medical physicist with the insight into the technology that is necessary to establish an independent and comprehensive quality assurance program for a helical tomotherapy unit. The emphasis of the report is to describe the rationale for the proposed QA program and to provide example tests that can be performed, drawing from the collective experience of the task group members and the published literature. It is expected that as technology continues to evolve, so will the test procedures that may be used in the future to perform comprehensive quality assurance for helical tomotherapy units.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 4 1%
United States 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 261 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 49 18%
Other 47 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 12%
Student > Master 30 11%
Student > Postgraduate 26 10%
Other 50 18%
Unknown 39 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 121 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 64 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 3%
Engineering 7 3%
Unspecified 4 1%
Other 16 6%
Unknown 53 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 March 2022.
All research outputs
of 21,422,252 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
of 7,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 283,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,422,252 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,412 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 283,903 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.