The use of a dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC) to deliver intensity-modulated beams presents a problem for conventional verification techniques. The use of electronic portal imaging to track MLC leaves during beam delivery has been shown to provide a solution to this problem. An experimental comparison of three different verification systems, each using a different electronic portal imaging technology, is presented. Two of the systems presented are commercially available imagers with in-house modifications, with the third system being an in-house built experimental system. The random and systematic errors present in each of the verifications systems are measured and presented, together with the study of the effects of varying dose rate and leaf speed on verification system performance. The performance of the three systems is demonstrated to be very similar, with an overall accuracy in comparing measured and prescribed collimator trajectories of approximately +/-1.0 mm. Systematic errors in the percentage delivered dose signal provided by the accelerator are significant and must be corrected for good performance of the current systems. It is demonstrated that, with suitable modifications, commercially available portal imaging systems can be used to verify dynamic MLC beam delivery.
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 28 September 2001.
All research outputs
#8,195,824
of 24,558,777 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#2,059
of 7,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,180
of 39,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#6
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,558,777 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 39,830 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
