↓ Skip to main content

Characterization of XR‐RV3 GafChromic® films in standard laboratory and in clinical conditions and means to evaluate uncertainties and reduce errors

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Characterization of XR‐RV3 GafChromic® films in standard laboratory and in clinical conditions and means to evaluate uncertainties and reduce errors
Published in
Medical Physics, June 2015
DOI 10.1118/1.4922132
Pubmed ID
Authors

J Farah, A Trianni, O Ciraj-Bjelac, I Clairand, C De Angelis, S Delle Canne, L Hadid, C Huet, H Jarvinen, A Negri, L Novák, M Pinto, T Siiskonen, M J Waryn, Ž Knežević

Abstract

To investigate the optimal use of XR-RV3 GafChromic(®) films to assess patient skin dose in interventional radiology while addressing the means to reduce uncertainties in dose assessment. XR-Type R GafChromic films have been shown to represent the most efficient and suitable solution to determine patient skin dose in interventional procedures. As film dosimetry can be associated with high uncertainty, this paper presents the EURADOS WG 12 initiative to carry out a comprehensive study of film characteristics with a multisite approach. The considered sources of uncertainties include scanner, film, and fitting-related errors. The work focused on studying film behavior with clinical high-dose-rate pulsed beams (previously unavailable in the literature) together with reference standard laboratory beams. First, the performance analysis of six different scanner models has shown that scan uniformity perpendicular to the lamp motion axis and that long term stability are the main sources of scanner-related uncertainties. These could induce errors of up to 7% on the film readings unless regularly checked and corrected. Typically, scan uniformity correction matrices and reading normalization to the scanner-specific and daily background reading should be done. In addition, the analysis on multiple film batches has shown that XR-RV3 films have generally good uniformity within one batch (<1.5%), require 24 h to stabilize after the irradiation and their response is roughly independent of dose rate (<5%). However, XR-RV3 films showed large variations (up to 15%) with radiation quality both in standard laboratory and in clinical conditions. As such, and prior to conducting patient skin dose measurements, it is mandatory to choose the appropriate calibration beam quality depending on the characteristics of the x-ray systems that will be used clinically. In addition, yellow side film irradiations should be preferentially used since they showed a lower dependence on beam parameters compared to white side film irradiations. Finally, among the six different fit equations tested in this work, typically used third order polynomials and more rational and simplistic equations, of the form dose inversely proportional to pixel value, were both found to provide satisfactory results. Fitting-related uncertainty was clearly identified as a major contributor to the overall film dosimetry uncertainty with up to 40% error on the dose estimate. The overall uncertainty associated with the use of XR-RV3 films to determine skin dose in the interventional environment can realistically be estimated to be around 20% (k = 1). This uncertainty can be reduced to within 5% if carefully monitoring scanner, film, and fitting-related errors or it can easily increase to over 40% if minimal care is not taken. This work demonstrates the importance of appropriate calibration, reading, fitting, and other film-related and scan-related processes, which will help improve the accuracy of skin dose measurements in interventional procedures.

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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 14 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 23%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 5 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 June 2015.
All research outputs
#19,290,136
of 24,558,777 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#5,892
of 7,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,552
of 268,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#225
of 568 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,558,777 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,887 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 268,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 568 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.