Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/ C5106545!5106545!27853720     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 243.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 243.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 243.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 243.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 243.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 276.79999999999995 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       J+Biomed+Phys+Eng 2016 ; 6 (3): 127-38 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=27853720|t=2016. Performance Evaluation of Algorithms in Lung IMRT: A comparison of Monte Carlo, Pencil Beam, Superposition, Fast Superposition and Convolution Algorithms |pdf=|usr=}}{{27853720}} gab.com Text Performance Evaluation of Algorithms in Lung IMRT: A comparison of Monte Carlo, Pencil Beam, Superposition, Fast Superposition and Convolution Algorithms JO: J Biomed Phys Eng http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27853720 #FOAvip Background:: Inclusion of inhomogeneity corrections in intensity modulated small fields always makes conformal irradiation of lung tumor very complicated in accurate dose delivery. Objective:: In the present study, the performance of five algorithms via Monte Carlo, Pencil Beam, Convolution, Fast Superposition and Superposition were evaluated in lung cancer Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy planning. Materials and Methods: : Treatment plans for ten lung cancer patients previously planned on Monte Carlo algorithm were re-planned using same treatment planning indices (gantry angel, rank, power etc.) in other four algorithms. Results:: The values of radiotherapy planning parameters such as Mean dose, volume of 95% isodose line, Conformity Index, Homogeneity Index for target, Maximum dose, Mean dose; %Volume receiving 20Gy or more by contralateral lung; % volume receiving 30 Gy or more; % volume receiving 25 Gy or more, Mean dose received by heart; %volume receiving 35Gy or more; %volume receiving 50Gy or more, Mean dose to Easophagous; % Volume receiving 45Gy or more, Maximum dose received by Spinal cord and Total monitor unit, Volume of 50 % isodose lines were recorded for all ten patients. Performance of different algorithms was also evaluated statistically. Conclusion:: MC and PB algorithms found better as for tumor coverage, dose distribution homogeneity in Planning Target Volume and minimal dose to organ at risks are concerned. Superposition algorithms found to be better than convolution and fast superposition. In the case of tumors located centrally, it is recommended to use Monte Carlo algorithms for the optimal use of radiotherapy. Twit Text FOAVip Performance Evaluation of Algorithms in Lung IMRT: A comparison of Monte Carlo, Pencil Beam, Superposition, Fast Superposition and Convolution Algorithms ????J Biomed Phys Eng http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27853720 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27853720 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|27853720}}</ref> Performance Evaluation of Algorithms in Lung IMRT: A comparison of Monte Carlo, Pencil Beam, Superposition, Fast Superposition and Convolution Algorithms #MMPMID27853720 Verma T; Painuly N; Mishra S; Shajahan M; Singh N; Bhatt M; Jamal N; Pant M J Biomed Phys Eng 2016[Sep]; 6 (3): 127-38 PMID27853720show ga Background:: Inclusion of inhomogeneity corrections in intensity modulated small fields always makes conformal irradiation of lung tumor very complicated in accurate dose delivery. Objective:: In the present study, the performance of five algorithms via Monte Carlo, Pencil Beam, Convolution, Fast Superposition and Superposition were evaluated in lung cancer Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy planning. Materials and Methods: : Treatment plans for ten lung cancer patients previously planned on Monte Carlo algorithm were re-planned using same treatment planning indices (gantry angel, rank, power etc.) in other four algorithms. Results:: The values of radiotherapy planning parameters such as Mean dose, volume of 95% isodose line, Conformity Index, Homogeneity Index for target, Maximum dose, Mean dose; %Volume receiving 20Gy or more by contralateral lung; % volume receiving 30 Gy or more; % volume receiving 25 Gy or more, Mean dose received by heart; %volume receiving 35Gy or more; %volume receiving 50Gy or more, Mean dose to Easophagous; % Volume receiving 45Gy or more, Maximum dose received by Spinal cord and Total monitor unit, Volume of 50 % isodose lines were recorded for all ten patients. Performance of different algorithms was also evaluated statistically. Conclusion:: MC and PB algorithms found better as for tumor coverage, dose distribution homogeneity in Planning Target Volume and minimal dose to organ at risks are concerned. Superposition algorithms found to be better than convolution and fast superposition. In the case of tumors located centrally, it is recommended to use Monte Carlo algorithms for the optimal use of radiotherapy. äPerformance Evaluation of Algorithms in Lung IMRT: A comparison of Mon(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing