↓ 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

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
645 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
674 Mendeley
Title
Task Group 142 report: Quality assurance of medical acceleratorsa)
Published in
Medical Physics, August 2009
DOI 10.1118/1.3190392
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

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).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 674 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 1%
Spain 7 1%
Canada 6 <1%
Japan 6 <1%
United Kingdom 5 <1%
Belgium 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 7 1%
Unknown 626 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 123 18%
Researcher 120 18%
Student > Master 113 17%
Other 105 16%
Unspecified 44 7%
Other 169 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 358 53%
Medicine and Dentistry 151 22%
Unspecified 73 11%
Engineering 42 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 2%
Other 37 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 September 2015.
All research outputs
#7,346,517
of 12,362,639 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#3,393
of 5,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,109
of 253,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#76
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,362,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,412 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 253,814 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.