↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Task Group 142 report: Quality assurance of medical acceleratorsa)

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, August 2009
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 policy source
2 X users
7 patents
1 Wikipedia page


1313 Dimensions

Readers on

1227 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
Task Group 142 report: Quality assurance of medical acceleratorsa)
Published in
Medical Physics, August 2009
DOI 10.1118/1.3190392
Pubmed ID

Eric E. Klein, Joseph Hanley, John Bayouth, Fang‐Fang Yin, William Simon, Sean Dresser, Christopher Serago, Francisco Aguirre, Lijun Ma, Bijan Arjomandy, Chihray Liu, Carlos Sandin, Todd Holmes


The task group (TG) for quality assurance of medical accelerators was constituted by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine's Science Council under the direction of the Radiation Therapy Committee and the Quality Assurance and Outcome Improvement Subcommittee. The task group (TG-142) had two main charges. First to update, as needed, recommendations of Table II of the AAPM TG-40 report on quality assurance and second, to add recommendations for asymmetric jaws, multileaf collimation (MLC), and dynamic/virtual wedges. The TG accomplished the update to TG-40, specifying new test and tolerances, and has added recommendations for not only the new ancillary delivery technologies but also for imaging devices that are part of the linear accelerator. The imaging devices include x-ray imaging, photon portal imaging, and cone-beam CT. The TG report was designed to account for the types of treatments delivered with the particular machine. For example, machines that are used for radiosurgery treatments or intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) require different tests and/or tolerances. There are specific recommendations for MLC quality assurance for machines performing IMRT. The report also gives recommendations as to action levels for the physicists to implement particular actions, whether they are inspection, scheduled action, or immediate and corrective action. The report is geared to be flexible for the physicist to customize the QA program depending on clinical utility. There are specific tables according to daily, monthly, and annual reviews, along with unique tables for wedge systems, MLC, and imaging checks. The report also gives specific recommendations regarding setup of a QA program by the physicist in regards to building a QA team, establishing procedures, training of personnel, documentation, and end-to-end system checks. The tabulated items of this report have been considerably expanded as compared with the original TG-40 report and the recommended tolerances accommodate differences in the intended use of the machine functionality (non-IMRT, IMRT, and stereotactic delivery).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 1,227 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 <1%
Spain 7 <1%
Canada 6 <1%
Japan 5 <1%
Belgium 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 7 <1%
Unknown 1183 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 188 15%
Researcher 174 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 174 14%
Other 129 11%
Student > Bachelor 81 7%
Other 200 16%
Unknown 281 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 489 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 219 18%
Engineering 65 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 3%
Computer Science 14 1%
Other 74 6%
Unknown 334 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 26 December 2023.
All research outputs
of 24,558,777 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
of 7,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 114,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,558,777 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 7,887 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. 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 114,704 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 95% of its contemporaries.