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.

10.1120/jacmp.v4i2.2524 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1120/jacmp.v4i2.2524 C5724471!5724471!12777144     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       J+Appl+Clin+Med+Phys 2003 ; 4 (2): 102-11 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=12777144|t=2003. TG?51: Experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hints |pdf=|usr=}}{{12777144}} gab.com Text TG 51: Experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hints JO: J Appl Clin Med Phys http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=12777144 #FOAvip The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) is a resource to the medical physics community for assistance regarding dosimetry procedures. Since the publication of the AAPM TG?51 calibration protocol, the RPC has responded to numerous phone calls raising questions and describing areas in the protocol where physicists have had problems. At the beginning of the year 2000, the RPC requested that institutions participating in national clinical trials provide the change in measured beam output resulting from the conversion from the TG?21 protocol to TG?51. So far, the RPC has received the requested data from ~?150 of the ~?1300 institutions in the RPC program. The RPC also undertook a comparison of TG?21 and TG?51 and determined the expected change in beam calibration for ion chambers in common use, and for the range of photon and electron beam energies used clinically. Analysis of these data revealed two significant outcomes: (i) a large number (~?1/2) of the reported calibration changes for photon and electron beams were outside the RPC's expected values, and (ii) the discrepancies in the reported versus the expected dose changes were as large as 8%. Numerous factors were determined to have contributed to these deviations. The most significant factors involved the use of plane?parallel chambers, the mixing of phantom materials and chambers between the two protocols, and the inconsistent use of depth?dose factors for transfer of dose from the measurement depth to the depth of dose maximum. In response to these observations, the RPC has identified a number of circumstances in which physicists might have difficulty with the protocol, including concerns related to electron calibration at low energies (R50<2cm), and the use of a cylindrical chamber at 6 MeV electrons. In addition, helpful quantitative hints are presented, including the effect of the prescribed lead filter for photon energy measurements, the impact of shifting the chamber depth for photon depth?dose measurements, and the impact of updated stopping?power data used in TG?51versus that used in TG?21, particularly for electron calibrations.PACS number(s): 87.53.?j, 87.66.?a Twit Text FOAVip TG 51: Experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hints ????J Appl Clin Med Phys http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=12777144 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=12777144 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|12777144}}</ref> TG?51: Experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hints #MMPMID12777144 Tailor RC; Hanson WF; Ibbott GS J Appl Clin Med Phys 2003[Spr]; 4 (2): 102-11 PMID12777144show ga The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) is a resource to the medical physics community for assistance regarding dosimetry procedures. Since the publication of the AAPM TG?51 calibration protocol, the RPC has responded to numerous phone calls raising questions and describing areas in the protocol where physicists have had problems. At the beginning of the year 2000, the RPC requested that institutions participating in national clinical trials provide the change in measured beam output resulting from the conversion from the TG?21 protocol to TG?51. So far, the RPC has received the requested data from ~?150 of the ~?1300 institutions in the RPC program. The RPC also undertook a comparison of TG?21 and TG?51 and determined the expected change in beam calibration for ion chambers in common use, and for the range of photon and electron beam energies used clinically. Analysis of these data revealed two significant outcomes: (i) a large number (~?1/2) of the reported calibration changes for photon and electron beams were outside the RPC's expected values, and (ii) the discrepancies in the reported versus the expected dose changes were as large as 8%. Numerous factors were determined to have contributed to these deviations. The most significant factors involved the use of plane?parallel chambers, the mixing of phantom materials and chambers between the two protocols, and the inconsistent use of depth?dose factors for transfer of dose from the measurement depth to the depth of dose maximum. In response to these observations, the RPC has identified a number of circumstances in which physicists might have difficulty with the protocol, including concerns related to electron calibration at low energies (R50<2cm), and the use of a cylindrical chamber at 6 MeV electrons. In addition, helpful quantitative hints are presented, including the effect of the prescribed lead filter for photon energy measurements, the impact of shifting the chamber depth for photon depth?dose measurements, and the impact of updated stopping?power data used in TG?51versus that used in TG?21, particularly for electron calibrations.PACS number(s): 87.53.?j, 87.66.?a äTG?51: Experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hi(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing